Stephen Hawking doesn't believe in God

[johnsmith]

http://www.nbcnews.com/science/space/im-atheist-stephen-hawking-god-space-travel-n210076

What an idiot huh guys?

[SnakeBoy]

Scripture admonishes: "The fool has said in his heart, 'There is no God.'" (Psalm 14:1) It never ceases to amaze me the spectacular hoops through which God-deniers will jump to rationalize God's existence out of existence.

I got a chuckle the other day from one such God-denier. Stephen Hawking is, no doubt, a brilliant physicist. He's widely considered one of the most intelligent men alive.

Which makes his abject foolishness all the more puzzling.

In a desperate attempt to explain how a finally tuned, infinitely complex universe with highly intelligent, mindfully self-aware human beings can "appear spontaneously from nothing," Hawking threw the "M-theory" Hail Mary during a recent lecture titled "The Origin of the Universe."

According to NBC News, "M-theory posits that multiple universes are created out of nothing, Hawking explained, with many possible histories and many possible states of existence. In only a few of these states would life be possible, and in fewer still could something like humanity exist. Hawking mentioned that he felt fortunate to be living in this state of existence."

This is also known as the "multiverse" theory. It is, essentially, the God-deniers last best attempt to explain away a universe that exhibits smoking gun evidence of intelligent design and fine-tuning clearly intended to support life. The multiverse theory - to the extent it can be called a theory (there's exactly zero evidence to support it) - conjectures that our universe is merely one universe among an infinite number of invisible, parallel universes. It just so happens that we live in that one spontaneously self-created universe wherein, against astronomical odds (quite literally) - everything fell right in to place.

Poof - here we are.

In other words, we won the cosmic-parallel-dimension lottery at a-bazillion-to-one odds.
And they say we rely on blind faith?

[silverblk mystix]

May god strike him and make him paralyz....


wait...

[spurraider21]

I bet you love how god strikes down innocent babies with crippling diseases too

[johnsmith]

Snakeboy, you got a link for what you just posted?

[johnsmith]

May god strike him and make him paralyz....


wait...

Lol

[johnsmith]

I bet you love how god strikes down innocent babies with crippling diseases too

Aren't you an atheist?

[silverblk mystix]

I bet you love how god strikes down innocent babies with crippling diseases too


Reality happens...

stupid human beings make judgments about things that happen.

Reality continues whether stupid human beings judge these happenings positively or negatively.

Whose to say if your scenario is a good thing or bad thing?

Oh yeah...stupid humans...

[spurraider21]

Aren't you an atheist?
Depending on your definition. I don't believe in a god. Some say that's atheism. Others say atheism requires making the claim that god doesn't exist. I don't go that far

Reality happens...

stupid human beings make judgments about things that happen.

Reality continues whether stupid human beings judge these happenings positively or negatively.

Whose to say if your scenario is a good thing or bad thing?

Oh yeah...stupid humans...
I just don't get the double standard in it all. When good things happen you'll say god is good, or you've been blessed, etc. god gets credit for good stuff. When unjust things happen, it's just "reality happens" even though it's supposedly all gods will. But nobody will bring up god when such an unfortunate event occurs

[Clipper Nation]

Reality happens...

stupid human beings make judgments about things that happen.
^ Mall cop finally admitting to his stupidity

[spurraider21]

Bad person gets punished: god punishes him

good person gets punished: reality happens

good person gets rewarded: god is good

it just boils down to making shit up as you go along, at least in the religious context

[silverblk mystix]

Depending on your definition. I don't believe in a god. Some say that's atheism. Others say atheism requires making the claim that god doesn't exist. I don't go that far

I just don't get the double standard in it all. When good things happen you'll say god is good, or you've been blessed, etc. god gets credit for good stuff. When unjust things happen, it's just "reality happens" even though it's supposedly all gods will. But nobody will bring up god when such an unfortunate event occurs


None of this ever came from me...you are speaking about who?

[silverblk mystix]

^ Mall cop finally admitting to his stupidity


Which part of the statement are you misinformed about?

Reality goes on - independently - of humans.

Take humans off of the planet and nature/reality would continue and things would happen -

no one would be here to stupidly make a judgement - good or bad.

Dare to find something untruthful about that statement at your own peril.

[silverblk mystix]

Bad person gets punished: god punishes him

good person gets punished: reality happens

good person gets rewarded: god is good

it just boils down to making shit up as you go along, at least in the religious context


Again...


who are you referring to or whom are you attributing these inaccurate statements to?

[spurraider21]

So you don't believe that his rewards/punishes people?

[Clipper Nation]

Which part of the statement are you misinformed about?

Reality goes on - independently - of humans.

Take humans off of the planet and nature/reality would continue and things would happen -

no one would be here to stupidly make a judgement - good or bad.

Dare to find something untruthful about that statement at your own peril.
Psuedo-spiritual babble aside, your entire schtick involves passing judgment on other posters as if you're somehow better than them, so you don't get to call others "stupid" for passing judgment on anything....

[Chinook]

So?

[TeyshaBlue]

Schrödinger says hi.

[bigzak25]

Well he can goto hell, and he doesn't get to walk with Jesus like lt. Dan.

[HI-FI]

So?

[silverblk mystix]

Psuedo-spiritual babble aside, your entire schtick involves passing judgment on other posters as if you're somehow better than them, so you don't get to call others "stupid" for passing judgment on anything....


Wrong - as usual.

[silverblk mystix]

So you don't believe that his rewards/punishes people?


his?


something undefinable and you want to label it?

[Chinook]

^ That's never been a good argument. Dunno why you keep riding with it.

[spurraider21]

his?


something undefinable and you want to label it?
Meant god. Phone changed it

[silverblk mystix]

^ That's never been a good argument. Dunno why you keep riding with it.


It is not an argument - it is a self-evident truth.

[Chinook]

It is not an argument - it is a self-evident truth.

Lol. That's not how it works.

[silverblk mystix]

Lol. That's not how it works.


Ok, define god. Not the word "god"

the actual ...thing.


Right. You can't. No one on the planet can - not accurately anyway.

Taking us right back to what I stated.

Undefinable.

[Chinook]

Ok, define god. Not the word "god"

the actual ...thing.


Right. You can't. No one on the planet can - not accurately anyway.

Taking us right back to what I stated.

Undefinable.

Wow, so I must apologize. I actually thought you were trying to set up a completely different argument based on saying SR was a hypocrite for assigning attributes to something he doesn't believe in. My mistake.

Your actually argument is much worse.

Since when is the idea of god undefinable? More importantly, why the hell does that matter to discussion? There are a few extensions (assumed characteristics) that people attribute to god. Those are things people are arguing over. It doesn't matter that know one can tell you what god looks like or sounds like. It's still perfectly acceptable to debate over whether or not people's ideas about god are consistent or whether it makes sense to believe in god's existence.

And you can't get away with assigning no extensions to god. Otherwise, there is no idea of god at all.

For example, I defined god as simply the prime mover. So my arguments about the existence of god were based on defending the need for a PM. Some will argue that god created man in his image, had a son sent to save us all, raped his sister by pretending to be a bird, had curly hair etc. And those who make those extensions have to defend them.

Atheists merely have to dislodge those extensions to win the god debate. They don't have to provide proof that god does not exist.

[silverblk mystix]

Wow, so I must apologize. I actually thought you were trying to set up a completely different argument based on saying SR was a hypocrite for assigning attributes to something he doesn't believe in. My mistake.

Your actually argument is much worse.

Since when is the idea of god undefinable? More importantly, why the hell does that matter to discussion? There are a few extensions (assumed characteristics) that people attribute to god. Those are things people are arguing over. It doesn't matter that know one can tell you what god looks like or sounds like. It's still perfectly acceptable to debate over whether or not people's ideas about god are consistent or whether it makes sense to believe in god's existence.

And you can't get away with assigning no extensions to god. Otherwise, there is no idea of god at all.

For example, I defined god as simply the prime mover. So my arguments about the existence of god were based on defending the need for a PM. Some will argue that god created man in his image, had a son sent to save us all, raped his sister by pretending to be a bird, had curly hair etc. And those who make those extensions have to defend them.

Atheists merely have to dislodge those extensions to win the god debate. They don't have to provide proof that god does not exist.


Seems like the only argument is the one between you and you.

I only gave you truth.

It cannot be changed.

No one can define "god" accurately.


No one on the planet.

What's left to argue about?

Exactly.

[Chinook]

Seems like the only argument is the one between you and you.

I only gave you truth.

It cannot be changed.

No one can define "god" accurately.


No one on the planet.

What's left to argue about?

Exactly.

You don't get what I am saying. No one debates god's actual existence, since no one knows. What people are arguing about is what people attribute to god (their definitions, to use your terminology).

You have an idea of what you think god is, and that's what people are attacking. You can't retreat from that idea and claim god to be undefinable, because then you don't even have any concept of what god is. You may as well believe in ganciadfa, because that's what a word without extensions is -- just gibberish.

[SnakeBoy]

Snakeboy, you got a link for what you just posted?

http://www.westernjournalism.com/the-fool-says-there-is-no-god/

[silverblk mystix]

You don't get what I am saying. No one debates god's actual existence, since no one knows. What people are arguing about is what people attribute to god (their definitions, to use your terminology).

You have an idea of what you think god is, and that's what people are attacking. You can't retreat from that idea and claim god to be undefinable, because then you don't even have any concept of what god is. You may as well believe in ganciadfa, because that's what a word without extensions is -- just gibberish.



Pretty much what I have been trying to help you see - and it is right there in your own words.



No one even has a concept of what it is - and when they do -

have a concept - that is -


it is nothing near what they hope it will be and always - always inaccurate.

So, yes -

you CAN say that "god" is undefinable because it is.


Pretty much happens that the highest form of knowledge that humans have about "it" is that we don't know.


The most honest also.

[baseline bum]

Schrödinger says hi.

It's funny, have you ever seen the "derivation" of Schrödinger's equation? Physics is just littered with morally unsatisfying models. I guess the difference between M-Theory and quantum mechanics is that in quantum there are actually experiments that tell you QM is a great model that makes outstanding predictions, as loony as it is. Not sure how to test strings and M-theory though, as you would need preposterously strong radiation to be able localize something that small.

[Chinook]

Pretty much what I have been trying to help you see - and it is right there in your own words.



No one even has a concept of what it is - and when they do -

have a concept - that is -


it is nothing near what they hope it will be and always - always inaccurate.

So, yes -

you CAN say that "god" is undefinable because it is.


Pretty much happens that the highest form of knowledge that humans have about "it" is that we don't know.


The most honest also.

No. Just no. Do you believe in god? If so, what are you thinking about when you say that? If not, what are you thinking about when you say that? It doesn't matter.

Words are only tags for bundles of extensions. 'God' is a tag in your head for a bundle of ideas, as it is for everyone, theist or atheist. The word god means something to you, and that meaning is not undefinable.

[Koolaid_Man]

He's just upset that he has a permanent crook in his neck. I'd be mad at god too if I was him.

[silverblk mystix]

No. Just no. Do you believe in god? If so, what are you thinking about when you say that? If not, what are you thinking about when you say that? It doesn't matter.

Words are only tags for bundles of extensions. 'God' is a tag in your head for a bundle of ideas, as it is for everyone, theist or atheist. The word god means something to you, and that meaning is not undefinable.


Absolutely incorrect.


Words are things invented by humans to describe reality.

Except that words can only point to, allude to, stab at something that corresponds to reality but words are not reality.
Words cut up reality. Different cultures even cut up reality differently.

You can choke on the word "god" if you want to. You can even conjure up some "idea" in your head about what "god" is and even worse -

you can then argue with other people that have conjured up something entirely different from your fabrication -


You can do that 24/7 if you want to.

I choose not to because I sense that I would be as far removed from what "god" might be - so as to make me look pretty ridiculous.

Leading an aware person into realizing that this is an undefinable mystery.

Others can take stabs at defining it - I refuse.

[silverblk mystix]

He's just upset that he has a permanent crook in his neck. I'd be mad at god too if I was him.


:lmao:lmao


The stupidest thing that this very smart guy has ever said - I guess I can give him a pass because he has been a pretty heavy cat throughout his life - despite his physical disadvantages.

[Chinook]

Words are things invented by humans to describe reality.

No, they're not. Words are used to code ideas. Those ideas are used to try to convey meaning, some of which is supposed to represent reality.


I choose not to because I sense that I would be as far removed from what "god" might be - so as to make me look pretty ridiculous.

You only sense that because you have some idea of what god is. You're just trying to pretend that you don't. If you consider god undefinable, you don't consider him unapproachable. It wouldn't make sense to do so.


Leading an aware person into realizing that this is an undefinable mystery.

How is god a mystery in your world? You don't even know what god isn't. It's like saying that 'txtdyeiondifa' is a mystery.


Others can take stabs at defining it - I refuse.

Of course you have. You've asserted god's existence, so you have indeed begun to define him.

[Chinook]

It's funny, have you ever seen the "derivation" of Schrödinger's equation? Physics is just littered with morally unsatisfying models. I guess the difference between M-Theory and quantum mechanics is that in quantum there are actually experiments that tell you QM is a great model that makes outstanding predictions, as loony as it is. Not sure how to test strings and M-theory though, as you would need preposterously strong radiation to be able localize something that small.

Indeed. Those are just theories that those people tell themselves so that they can die with a clear conscience. M-theory is no different than any other religion.

[baseline bum]

Indeed. Those are just theories that those people tell themselves so that they can die with a clear conscience. M-theory is no different than any other religion.

How the fuck do you even test string theory and M-theory? You build a completely indestructible detector, fly it to Betelgeuse, wait 200 million years for it to Type 2 supernova, and then call it back home to see if it found a string?

[Chinook]

How the fuck do you even test string theory and M-theory? You build a completely indestructible detector, fly it to Betelgeuse, wait 200,000,000 million years for it to Type 2 supernova, and then call it back home to see if it found a string?

Crazy. That's why people should separate physicists from quantum physicists and theorist. Just because those guys can explain a lot of things with math doesn't mean that they have any idea about metaphysical matters.

[baseline bum]

Crazy. That's why people should separate physicists from quantum physicists and theorist. Just because those guys can explain a lot of things with math doesn't mean that they have any idea about metaphysical matters.

String theory is a lot of math. Quantum physics on the other hand is fact every bit as much as F=ma.

[spurraider21]

sbm... you aren't even making a point and it feels like you are deliberately dumbing down your argument to make a point.

do you believe in god? we all know you do.

so if you yourself are claiming that god is not definable, then how the fuck do you know you believe in it? how can you believe in something that you don't even know is? it makes no sense.

if you have a belief in god, then you must have some definition of it. please enlighten us as to your definition/understanding of the god you believe in. you've quoted the bible to me a few times so i'm assuming you believe in the judeo-christian god, which FYI is pretty clearly defined

[Chinook]

sbm... you aren't even making a point and it feels like you are deliberately dumbing down your argument to make a point.

do you believe in god? we all know you do.

so if you yourself are claiming that god is not definable, then how the fuck do you know you believe in it? how can you believe in something that you don't even know is? it makes no sense.

if you have a belief in god, then you must have some definition of it. please enlighten us as to your definition/understanding of the god you believe in. you've quoted the bible to me a few times so i'm assuming you believe in the judeo-christian god, which FYI is pretty clearly defined

It's like saying that you believe that lemons are controlling the government, but at the same time stressing that "lemons" can mean anything. It's like, what the hell are you even saying at that point?

[Chinook]

String theory is a lot of math. Quantum physics on the other hand is fact every bit as much as F=ma.

I agree that quantum physics are a fundamental basis of our knowledge pool. I guess I was looking for another word, something that ties in all the string, brane and M theories. I forget what that's called.

[spurraider21]

I agree that quantum physics are a fundamental basis of our knowledge pool. I guess I was looking for another world, something that ties in all the string, brane and M theories. I forget what that's called.
the theory of everything?

[Chinook]

the theory of everything?

Not a term for the theory, but for the branch of physics that deals with those things. I guess just theoretical physics?

[Chinook]

. Apparently you can't delete posts in the Club.

[spurraider21]

Not a term for the theory, but for the branch of physics that deals with those things. I guess just theoretical physics?
ah, i see what you're going for, but theoretical physics is too broad a term. einstein for instance was a theoretical physicist. can't really think of a word. maybe something like physical theorist? i dno if thats actually a thing

[baseline bum]

I agree that quantum physics are a fundamental basis of our knowledge pool. I guess I was looking for another word, something that ties in all the string, brane and M theories. I forget what that's called.

a unified field theory

[Koolaid_Man]

:lmao:lmao


The stupidest thing that this very smart guy has ever said - I guess I can give him a pass because he has been a pretty heavy cat throughout his life - despite his physical disadvantages.

According to this article he's been visiting whore houses for the past 5 yrs. Imagine the unfortunate hooker that has to suck his dick. Disgusting. He's mad at god because he cant get down like the rest of us. Everything for him is sideways. Like this :-)


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2106025/Stephen-Hawking-visits-California-swingers-sex-club.html

[xmas1997]

May god strike him and make him paralyz....


wait...

:lmao



Which part of the statement are you misinformed about?

Reality goes on - independently - of humans.

Take humans off of the planet and nature/reality would continue and things would happen -

no one would be here to stupidly make a judgement - good or bad.

Dare to find something untruthful about that statement at your own peril.

We would theorize that reality would go on without us, but who would know this for sure and who would verify it? No one since there would be no human who could say.

Thus for all practical purposes as far as we humans are concerned, there would be no "reality", and thus no 'God', to ponder over.



Psuedo-spiritual babble aside, your entire schtick involves passing judgment on other posters as if you're somehow better than them, so you don't get to call others "stupid" for passing judgment on anything....

Excellent trollish statement, but ignorant nonetheless. You are trying really hard to become my disciple through your trollish BS.



Absolutely incorrect.

Words are things invented by humans to describe reality.

Except that words can only point to, allude to, stab at something that corresponds to reality but words are not reality.
Words cut up reality. Different cultures even cut up reality differently.

You can choke on the word "god" if you want to. You can even conjure up some "idea" in your head about what "god" is and even worse -

you can then argue with other people that have conjured up something entirely different from your fabrication -


You can do that 24/7 if you want to.

I choose not to because I sense that I would be as far removed from what "god" might be - so as to make me look pretty ridiculous.

Leading an aware person into realizing that this is an undefinable mystery.

Others can take stabs at defining it - I refuse.


Canook, I think what he is trying to get across is that he doesn't really know one way or the other if God truly exists, yet what he has heard and read of others' notions, make it is a preposterous notion to even begin to try to define such a concept, or hypothesize a concept, that most consider beyond our human mental abilities to consider.

Thus his (SBM) notion of God being "undefinable".

Why undertake such an action as to define the "unknowable" by attributing "knowable" attributes to? That is the epitome of futility.

And then on top of that, others attempt to argue over those definitions, which MAY in fact be the furthest from what the real truth actually is.

Thus no one who lives have any "EXACT" idea of God (is, or isn't), and you are correct, it is like saying that 'txtdyeiondifa' is a mystery and thus impossible for the human mind to comprehend.

I am amazed at the human imagination for even coming up with the idea of God in the first place, it seems like a conumdrum, an impossibility to imagine the impossible, yet we have.

I don't think SBM ever stated that God IS, because I gather that the whole concept of God to SBM is beyond our comprehension, thus silly and trivial to argue over conceived attributes.

[silverblk mystix]

:lmao




We would theorize that reality would go on without us, but who would know this for sure and who would verify it? No one since there would be no human who could say.

Thus for all practical purposes as far as we humans are concerned, there would be no "reality", and thus no 'God', to ponder over.




Excellent trollish statement, but ignorant nonetheless. You are trying really hard to become my disciple through your trollish BS.





Canook, I think what he is trying to get across is that he doesn't really know one way or the other if God truly exists, yet what he has heard and read of others' notions, make it is a preposterous notion to even begin to try to define such a concept, or hypothesize a concept, that most consider beyond our human mental abilities to consider.

Thus his (SBM) notion of God being "undefinable".

Why undertake such an action as to define the "unknowable" by attributing "knowable" attributes to? That is the epitome of futility.

And then on top of that, others attempt to argue over those definitions, which MAY in fact be the furthest from what the real truth actually is.

Thus no one who lives have any "EXACT" idea of God (is, or isn't), and you are correct, it is like saying that 'txtdyeiondifa' is a mystery and thus impossible for the human mind to comprehend.

I am amazed at the human imagination for even coming up with the idea of God in the first place, it seems like a conumdrum, an impossibility to imagine the impossible, yet we have.

I don't think SBM ever stated that God IS, because I gather that the whole concept of God to SBM is beyond our comprehension, thus silly and trivial to argue over conceived attributes.


Thanks xmas...

fairly close to my thoughts on this subject.

[xmas1997]

It is a little futile and thus disconcerting to attribute humanly conceived attributes to a Devine unknowable Entity.

Even though we were made "supposedly" made in His Image.

What exactly does "made in His Image" mean?

Whatever we debate or think we know, on the subject, it may or may not even come close to what Gods' understanding of it is, as compared to humanity' understanding of the matter.

How do we get past the conundrum of knowing anything at all of some entity that is supposedly unknowable?

[silverblk mystix]

sbm... you aren't even making a point and it feels like you are deliberately dumbing down your argument to make a point.


Not dumbing down or trying to dumb down anything. A self evident truth is as simple and direct a thing to say. No one on the planet has ever accurately defined what "god" is. Because no one has that capability - therefore it is a mystery. It is undefinable.
Which part of this is not clear?

do you believe in god? we all know you do.


If no one in the history of the planet has ever accurately defined "god" - then why would I take another idiotic step and try to believe or disbelieve? It cannot fit in my brain that humans want to take a side or a stand on something undefinable.






so if you yourself are claiming that god is not definable, then how the fuck do you know you believe in it? how can you believe in something that you don't even know is? it makes no sense.



One cannot ever define an unknowable and undefinable mystery -- the best humans can do is to say that "god" is unknowable. The only thing that can maybe be stated is what "god" is not...
I don't think that "god" is something separate from us...or separate from the universe or creation - it does not fit in my brain when people say "do you believe in god?" "do you think god created this or that?" ...as if this "god" was a separate thing from us - from the universe - it just does not make sense at all... NOT THAT. You can ask the question regarding god a million different ways - and the only true & accurate response would be "NOT THAT"

if you have a belief in god, then you must have some definition of it. please enlighten us as to your definition/understanding of the god you believe in. you've quoted the bible to me a few times so i'm assuming you believe in the judeo-christian god, which FYI is pretty clearly defined

^ NOT THAT ^



The bible quote was just me responding to YOUR inaccurate interpretation - of a passage - and was not anything other than that. Unlike people that distort bible passages and condescend to people who believe in the bible - I do not throw out the baby with the bathwater when referring to the bible - I can fully understand and accept that there may be odd or inaccurate information in there as well as a pot of gold in there also. Only rigid blind people will find one thing wrong in the bible and completely dismiss all of it immediately - therefore missing out on the pot of gold and clues to truth and freedom that can be found in it. I also find more problems with people who "think they know" (bible haters/christian haters) than people who simply rely on faith.

[spurraider21]

i asked you if you believe in god. you are sidestepping the question and are making no sense as usual

[silverblk mystix]

i asked you if you believe in god. you are sidestepping the question and are making no sense as usual


Re-read the answer plainly stated in red above.

[silverblk mystix]

If no one in the history of the planet has ever accurately defined "god" - then why would I take another idiotic step and try to believe or disbelieve? It cannot fit in my brain that humans want to take a side or a stand on something undefinable.

[spurraider21]

Re-read the answer plainly stated in red above.
yes or no question. do you believe in a god?

a yes or no question literally requires a 1 word answer. provide that

[silverblk mystix]

yes or no question. do you believe in a god?

a yes or no question literally requires a 1 word answer. provide that



Not that ^

[spurraider21]

your inability to provide a very simple one word answer to a very simple question its telling about where this conversation is going. you're taking the xmas approach

[silverblk mystix]

your inability to provide a very simple one word answer to a very simple question its telling about where this conversation is going. you're taking the xmas approach

Words and concepts and explanations and beliefs - are all human inventions -


having nothing to do with any god - much less a "god" that has never been accurately defined.

Why would I argue over a word?


That word having nothing at all to do with reality....

[spurraider21]

Words and concepts and explanations and beliefs - are all human inventions -


having nothing to do with any god - much less a "god" that has never been accurately defined.

Why would I argue over a word?


That word having nothing at all to do with reality....
forget the word. call it whatever u want. god, creator, prime mover. idgaf. do you believe in god?

[silverblk mystix]

forget the word. call it whatever u want. god, creator, prime mover. idgaf. do you believe in god?


^ not that ^

[spurraider21]

:lol not answering the question
:lol silverblk mystix1997

[xmas1997]

:lol not answering the question
:lol silverblk mystix1997

No, don't you understand?

He is basically saying he does not know, but he doubts the answer is anything any of us would understand.

Not everything is black or white, mostly there is the gray.

[spurraider21]

as usual you misunderstand. i'm asking for his beliefs, i'm not asking him to give me the definitive truth. they are different

[silverblk mystix]

So, if a blind person approaches you and asks;

Is the color blue - hot or cold? -- not that

Is it long or short? not that


Is it round? Oval? Square? Sweet? Sour? Soft?


NOT THAT!


Blind people who have no intuition,experience,knowledge - and have never ever seen the color blue - and they want something....


CS Lewis stated that we cannot know god and even our questions about god are absurd...


he also said - it is like asking the question -"how many minutes are in the color yellow?"




Just crazy to even ask that question - but - humans do it every day - then they want to argue about it -





Leave me out of it - thanks!



:rollin:rollin:rollin

[xmas1997]

as usual you misunderstand. i'm asking for his beliefs, i'm not asking him to give me the definitive truth. they are different

No, I see that I understood him perfectly after reading his explanation, and thus my explanation to you was valid.

He is "neutral" on the God issue, that is plain to see.

[spurraider21]

No, I see that I understood him perfectly after reading his explanation, and thus my explanation to you was valid.

He is "neutral" on the God issue, that is plain to see.
he has quoted the bible at me several times though... if he doesn't necessarily believe in god then why would he be quoting the scripture of a specific god?

[spurraider21]

So, if a blind person approaches you and asks;

Is the color blue - hot or cold? -- not that

Is it long or short? not that


Is it round? Oval? Square? Sweet? Sour? Soft?


NOT THAT!


Blind people who have no intuition,experience,knowledge - and have never ever seen the color blue - and they want something....


CS Lewis stated that we cannot know god and even our questions about god are absurd...


he also said - it is like asking the question -"how many minutes are in the color yellow?"




Just crazy to even ask that question - but - humans do it every day - then they want to argue about it -





Leave me out of it - thanks!



:rollin:rollin:rollin
wow, this makes no sense at all. not surprising coming from you

if you claim the color yellow exists, you can describe it. you can point it out. this is why when somebody says "yellow" we all understand what they mean.

if you claim we can't in ANY way explain or define god, then it is asinine to even discuss it or even postulate its existence. you can't say that might or might not exist if you can't even discuss what that something is.

so SBM, you aren't christian?

[silverblk mystix]

wow, this makes no sense at all. not surprising coming from you


Makes perfect sense - unless you are either blind, stupid or just plain dishonest.

People who have no idea what "god" is asking if you believe or not - pretty insane.

CS Lewis - one of the most respected people on the the planet based on his writings - and he laid it out pretty truthfully -

Yet - it makes no sense to you?


lol

[spurraider21]

so SBM you aren't christian?

[ChumpDumper]

CS Lewis very clearly believed in God.



I believe in Christ

-- CS Lewis

[kobe4life]

God does exist and he plays for the Lakers. Stephen Hawking should watch a Lakers game and then he would realize God's existence.

[Chinook]

Makes perfect sense - unless you are either blind, stupid or just plain dishonest.

People who have no idea what "god" is asking if you believe or not - pretty insane.

CS Lewis - one of the most respected people on the the planet based on his writings - and he laid it out pretty truthfully -

Yet - it makes no sense to you?


lol

Then you're an atheist. That's fine.

[Chinook]

No, don't you understand?

He is basically saying he does not know, but he doubts the answer is anything any of us would understand.

Not everything is black or white, mostly there is the gray.

There's no reason why that's the case. If you make no extensions about god, you make NO assumptions whatsoever. That line of argument is pretty much saying that 'god' the word doesn't link to anything. If that's true, then there's nothing to believe exists or doesn't exist.

[spurraider21]

There's no reason why that's the case. If you make no extensions about god, you make NO assumptions whatsoever. That line of argument is pretty much saying that 'god' the word doesn't link to anything. If that's true, then there's nothing to believe exists or doesn't exist.
basically. sbm is trying to act smart by assigning all this ambiguity to defend his belief without realizing he is destroying his own argument by doing so

[Chinook]

basically. sbm is trying to act smart by assigning all this ambiguity to defend his belief without realizing he is destroying his own argument by doing so

Yep. He's arguing that no one knows what 'god' the thing is, only what 'god' the word is. But since he's breaking the two apart, there's really nothing he can say at the moment.

[spurraider21]

its humorous because he used to start throwing bible scriptures at me during these discussions, but now is claiming he doesn't believe nor disbelieve this "god" entity that we can't define or explain

[xmas1997]

There's no reason why that's the case. If you make no extensions about god, you make NO assumptions whatsoever. That line of argument is pretty much saying that 'god' the word doesn't link to anything. If that's true, then there's nothing to believe exists or doesn't exist.

Yes, partly you are correct, in that in reality you cannot make any extensions and thus no assumptions. To do so is the epitome of folly, or a waste of time.

If God is beyond our understanding, unknowable, a mystery, whatever adjective you choose to use, then basically that is just saying that everything else is merely guesswork, conjecture, whatever.

That is fine to do if you have nothing better to do, but it is akin to playing child games like tag or hide-n-seek.

There actually may well be nothing to believe exists or doesn't exist, and all of this may be a huge elaborate dream, and you may wake up tomorrow and know all the answers, and wonder about the dream you had writing on ST about God, and at that point you will have then realized it was only a dream.

[Chinook]

its humorous because he used to start throwing bible scriptures at me during these discussions, but now is claiming he doesn't believe nor disbelieve this "god" entity that we can't define or explain

Yep. It's like if I tried to rock the world with my agnosticism toward pkocadfed. I personally have no idea if pkocadfed exists, and neither does anyone else. I'm just smart enough to realize I don't know anything about pkocadfed.

[spurraider21]

Yep. It's like if I tried to rock the world with my agnosticism toward pkocadfed. I personally have no idea if pkocadfed exists, and neither does anyone else. I'm just smart enough to realize I don't know anything about pkocadfed.
he's making the case for pastafarianism

[Chinook]

Yes, partly you are correct, in that in reality you cannot make any extensions and thus no assumptions. To do so is the epitome of folly, or a waste of time.

If God is beyond our understanding, unknowable, a mystery, whatever adjective you choose to use, then basically that is just saying that everything else is merely guesswork, conjecture, whatever.

That is fine to do if you have nothing better to do, but it is akin to playing child games like tag or hide-n-seek.

There actually may well be nothing to believe exists or doesn't exist, and all of this may be a huge elaborate dream, and you may wake up tomorrow and know all the answers, and wonder about the dream you had writing on ST about God, and at that point you will have then realized it was only a dream.

That's a contradiction. God cannot be completely beyond understanding if we believe he is.

[xmas1997]

Yep. It's like if I tried to rock the world with my agnosticism toward pkocadfed. I personally have no idea if pkocadfed exists, and neither does anyone else. I'm just smart enough to realize I don't know anything about pkocadfed.


he's making the case for pastafarianism

I think anything, and I mean ANYTHING, is possible.

[Chinook]

he's making the case for pastafarianism

Nah. The FSM still has extensions, so we have an idea what we're talking about. He's not even at a point of saying, "You can't prove me wrong." He's pretty much throwing an aborted fetus on a canvas and walking away.

[Chinook]

I think anything, and I mean ANYTHING, is possible.

You even think that it's possible that there are impossible things?

[xmas1997]

That's a contradiction. God cannot be completely beyond understanding if we believe he is.

It sounds like a contradiction, and if God is unknowable or unfathomable, then nothing about God is therefore impossible, but it is more a conundrum.

What is impossible is the human ability to understand the unknowable, the contradictory, the impossible.

How is it possible to understand the impossible in human terms, whereas it may be that only God can?

[spurraider21]

You even think that it's possible that there are impossible things?
http://ampp3d.mirror.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Tim-and-Eric-Space-Explosions.gif

[xmas1997]

You even think that it's possible that there are impossible things?

As contradictory as that sounds, yes, from a Devine point of view that may well be the case.

[Chinook]

It sounds like a contradiction, and if God is unknowable or unfathomable, then nothing about God is therefore impossible, but it is more a conundrum.

What is impossible is the human ability to understand the unknowable, the contradictory, the impossible.

How is it possible to understand the impossible in human terms, whereas it may be that only God can?

That's part of Decartes' proof for the existence of god. It's the idea that a negative can only be understood in terms of the positive. That's actually a line of reasoning I referenced in the last religious thread I got involved in.

Anyway, that's not the point of the conversation. I don't put it past god to be completely incomprehensible. You do, by saying you comprehend that he's incomprehensible. That cannot be true, and it has nothing to do with god. It has everything to do with the way humans think. God being god doesn't magically fix that logical breakdown.

[xmas1997]

You even think that it's possible that there are impossible things?

What if this "reality" that we do everything in, turns out to be just a dream that we wake up from at some indeterminate future point in time?

Then what will you say in retrospect about this point in time now?

[Chinook]

As contradictory as that sounds, yes, from a Devine point of view that may well be the case.

But if god is incomprehensible, how do you know he's divine?

[xmas1997]

That's part of Decartes' proof for the existence of god. It's the idea that a negative can only be understood in terms of the positive. That's actually a line of reasoning I referenced in the last religious thread I got involved in.

Anyway, that's not the point of the conversation. I don't put it past god to be completely incomprehensible. You do, by saying you comprehend that he's incomprehensible. That cannot be true, and it has nothing to do with god. It has everything to do with the way humans think. God being god doesn't magically fix that logical breakdown.

Well actually I "think" He is incomprehensible, but I do not Know this to be the case.

No doubt God IS whatever God wants to be no matter what any of us think.

[Chinook]

What if this "reality" that we do everything in, turns out to be just a dream that we wake up from at some indeterminate future point in time?

Then what will you say in retrospect about this point in time now?

Dunno. Depends on what I was asked. Same thing is true if someone asks me about my childhood.

[Chinook]

Well actually I "think" He is incomprehensible, but I do not Know this to be the case.

No doubt God IS whatever God wants to be no matter what any of us think.

Not true. You don't attribute to him any power at all, so it's not a logical implication that he can be whatever he wants to be. He is what he is, because that's the identity principle, which is self-evident. Everything else is an assumption.

As far as thinking and knowing, there is no real difference to speak about. No one is arguing about whether god does or does not exist. Merely people are debating whether it makes sense to believe (think) he exists. So thinking is the important part here.

[xmas1997]

But if god is incomprehensible, how do you know he's divine?

I don't KNOW, I am guessing, and using dictionary definitions, what else?

i.e. di·vine1
diˈvīn/
adjective
adjective: divine; comparative adjective: diviner; superlative adjective: divinest

1.
of, from, or like God or a god.
"heroes with divine powers"
synonyms: godly, angelic, seraphic, saintly, beatific;

[Chinook]

I don't KNOW, I am guessing, and using dictionary definitions, what else?

i.e. di·vine1
diˈvīn/
adjective
adjective: divine; comparative adjective: diviner; superlative adjective: divinest

1.
of, from, or like God or a god.
"heroes with divine powers"
synonyms: godly, angelic, seraphic, saintly, beatific;

See my last post. For this thread, there's literally no difference between believing something and "knowing it" in the colloquial sense.

[xmas1997]

Not true. You don't attribute to him any power at all, so it's not a logical implication that he can be whatever he wants to be. He is what he is, because that's the identity principle, which is self-evident. Everything else is an assumption.

As far as thinking and knowing, there is no real difference to speak about. No one is arguing about whether god does or does not exist. Merely people are debating whether it makes sense to believe (think) he exists. So thinking is the important part here.

I see your point, but I respectfully disagree. I see no reason why God cannot BE whatever God wants to be, whenever He wants to be, however He wants to be.

His reality may be the only true reality, and ours may be the dream state that eventually we awaken from.

[Chinook]

I see your point, but I respectfully disagree. I see no reason why God cannot BE whatever God wants to be, whenever He wants to be, however He wants to be.

His reality may be the only true reality, and ours may be the dream state that eventually we awaken from.

I don't think anyone does. The point is that once you say that about him, you no longer can argue that he's completely incomprehensible.

[spurraider21]

the moment you assign ANY attribute to god, you can no longer say "he's undefinable" or "incomprehensible."

even by calling him divine, thats assigning a trait to him

[xmas1997]

I don't think anyone does. The point is that once you say that about him, you no longer can argue that he's completely incomprehensible.

We THINK he may be comprehensible, or incomprehensible, or both at the same time, because we have flawed capability to see the ALL of Everything at once and the same time.

I am doing my best NOT to define Him, because I think that would in some way limit Him by my imperfect definition because He is probably limitless.

Even by saying this least little bit, that takes a tiny step toward making Him comprehensible, I realize this, but that may do nothing toward the reality of the matter from the point of view of God.

[spurraider21]

We THINK he may be comprehensible, or incomprehensible, or both at the same time, because we have flawed capability to see the ALL of Everything at once and the same time.

I am doing my best NOT to define Him, because I think that would in some way limit Him by my imperfect definition because He is probably limitless.

Even by saying this least little bit, that takes a tiny step toward making Him comprehensible, I realize this, but that may do nothing toward the reality of the matter from the point of view of God.
if you are claiming he created the universe/life then that is a trait in it of itself

if he is the creator of life and space/time, then he can't be considered completely incomprehensible and this argument just folds

[Chinook]

We THINK he may be comprehensible, or incomprehensible, or both at the same time, because we have flawed capability to see the ALL of Everything at once and the same time.

I am doing my best NOT to define Him, because I think that would in some way limit Him by my imperfect definition because He is probably limitless.

Even by saying this least little bit, that takes a tiny step toward making Him comprehensible, I realize this, but that may do nothing toward the reality of the matter from the point of view of God.

Again, no one is talking about the actual qualities of god. No one knows what those are. The argument is completely based in human minds, so we have to/get to use our rules. And you know what? That's the case for ALMOST EVERYTHING people argue over. We don't actually KNOW the true qualities of objects in the world. We just have certain extensions we assign to them so that we can think about them and discuss them.

[Clipper Nation]

Wrong - as usual.

The OP is still an attention whoring faggot...


Some of you other faggots give him a hug already.

[silverblk mystix]

so SBM you aren't christian?



not that

[silverblk mystix]

basically. sbm is trying to act smart by assigning all this ambiguity to defend his belief without realizing he is destroying his own argument by doing so


Self evident truth.


No one can accurately define "god"


What does a truth have to do with an argument?


Nothing.

You can recognize a truth or you can ignore it...deny it....


you choose.

[ChumpDumper]

Hey Clive. do you believe in God?

I believe in Christ
Hey sbm, do you believe in God?

http://media.giphy.com/media/JLbTqEU5B8Z2w/giphy.gif

[spurraider21]

not that
its a yes or no question. "not that" doesn't answer it.

[silverblk mystix]

CS Lewis believed...


then someone he loved very much died a painful death right before his eyes...


so he began to question....


Most reasonable people would do the same IMO.

[spurraider21]

reasonable people can answer basic questions

[xmas1997]

Again, no one is talking about the actual qualities of god. No one knows what those are. The argument is completely based in human minds, so we have to/get to use our rules. And you know what? That's the case for ALMOST EVERYTHING people argue over. We don't actually KNOW the true qualities of objects in the world. We just have certain extensions we assign to them so that we can think about them and discuss them.

Yes, I wholly agree with this and would argue it is the case with everything we humans argue over, we agree to define certain things the same in order to converse with each other, but I think no two people see "things" exactly the same way and thus our differences in opinion of the way things truly are.

Yet for each of us, what we believe, truly defines our particular realities, and not only what we believe, but also what we think and feel.

That is why the "reality" of a deranged person is quite different than that of our own.

[silverblk mystix]

reasonable people can answer basic questions


Agreed.


Asking if someone believes in something undefinable & unknowable -


is pure lunacy tbh.

[silverblk mystix]

Be back - gotta make a beer run before watching the cowboys get massacred! :lol:lol

[spurraider21]

Agreed.


Asking if someone believes in something undefinable & unknowable -


is pure lunacy tbh.
i asked if you were christian. you couldn't answer it.

[ChumpDumper]

CS Lewis believed...


then someone he loved very much died a painful death right before his eyes...


so he began to question....For a couple hours.

Thereafter, no question.....

[Chinook]

Yes, I wholly agree with this and would argue it is the case with everything we humans argue over, we agree to define certain things the same in order to converse with each other, but I think no two people see "things" exactly the same way and thus our differences in opinion of the way things truly are.

Yet for each of us, what we believe, truly defines our particular realities, and not only what we believe, but also what we think and feel.

That is why the "reality" of a deranged person is quite different than that of our own.

This is why talking about "thinking" and not "knowing" is pointless. It's also why trying to appeal to god the noumenon is pointless. Since all conversations are about phenomena, then this one is as well. So only the phenomenon of god is relevant. People have to state what that means to them, and then people get to debate it.

[xmas1997]

This is why talking about "thinking" and not "knowing" is pointless. It's also why trying to appeal to god the noumenon is pointless. Since all conversations are about phenomena, then this one is as well. So only the phenomenon of god is relevant. People have to state what that means to them, and then people get to debate it.

It makes one wonder what the motivation to debate phenomenon is. Fun, enlightenment, to discredit?

I think you can debate the subject of "god", but that we are over our heads when we tackle "GOD".

[Chinook]

It makes one wonder what the motivation to debate phenomenon is. Fun, enlightenment, to discredit?

No, since all debate is over phenomena, the motivation to debate them is the motivation to debate anything. We need to hash things out, so we discuss them.


I think you can debate the subject of "god", but that we are over our heads when we tackle "GOD".

That may be true. But it cannot be a belief that is held logically.

[DMC]

http://www.nbcnews.com/science/space/im-atheist-stephen-hawking-god-space-travel-n210076

What an idiot huh guys?
You just figuring this out and you have a degree from where exactly?

[DMC]

It makes one wonder what the motivation to debate phenomenon is. Fun, enlightenment, to discredit?

I think you can debate the subject of "god", but that we are over our heads when we tackle "GOD".

Claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. That's one of my favorite quotes.

[xmas1997]

No, since all debate is over phenomena, the motivation to debate them is the motivation to debate anything. We need to hash things out, so we discuss them.



That may be true. But it cannot be a belief that is held logically.

Are any "beliefs" held logically?
Assumptions can be held logically IMHO, because they do not depend on "faith", but beliefs?

[xmas1997]

Claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. That's one of my favorite quotes.

Excellent quote, one I try to adhere to.

[Chinook]

Are any "beliefs" held logically?
Assumptions can be held logically IMHO, because they do not depend on "faith", but beliefs?

Not all beliefs are held logically, but none can be held illogically.

Remember, "logical" and "rational" are not the same thing. Something being illogical means it simply cannot be right.

[DMC]

Not all beliefs are held logically, but none can be held illogically.

Remember, "logical" and "rational" are not the same thing. Something being illogical means it simply cannot be right.

So "lacking sense or clear, sound reasoning" cannot influence beliefs?

[xmas1997]

Not all beliefs are held logically, but none can be held illogically.

Remember, "logical" and "rational" are not the same thing. Something being illogical means it simply cannot be right.

I agree. And sensible is there as well.

[silverblk mystix]

i asked if you were christian. you couldn't answer it.


Well I don't label myself anything - except maybe, human being.

[Strange Love]

Mystix, saving the world one cavity search at a time.

[silverblk mystix]

Mystix, saving the world one cavity search at a time.


If that is how it has to be...


bend over...

[xmas1997]

Well I don't label myself anything - except maybe, human being.

I label myself as a cafeteria Catholic Christian, but many do not see it the same as I do, which is fine with me.

I don't require anyone else to believe exactly the same as I do, nor do I find it threatening in any way.

[spurraider21]

I label myself as a cafeteria Catholic Christian, but many do not see it the same as I do, which is fine with me.

I don't require anyone else to believe exactly the same as I do, nor do I find it threatening in any way.
your inability to answer questions about your faith answers everything i need to know.

in the older thread i kept asking if you thought the story of abraham actually occurred and you kept rambling about allegory and literary style.

either you don't have a belief/opinion, or you are just trolling

[Chinook]

So "lacking sense or clear, sound reasoning" cannot influence beliefs?

Sure, but that's relative. A person believes things because they make sense to them. Them being irrational may give them beliefs that we deem irrational, but those beliefs still are bound to the irrational person's logic.

[xmas1997]

Sure, but that's relative. A person believes things because they make sense to them. Them being irrational may give them beliefs that we deem irrational, but those beliefs still are bound to the irrational person's logic.

Plus it is only irrational to those with a different perception of it, thus why it is relative, and I would argue subjective.

[DMC]

Sure, but that's relative. A person believes things because they make sense to them. Them being irrational may give them beliefs that we deem irrational, but those beliefs still are bound to the irrational person's logic.

But illogical isn't something the irrational person self-prescribes. It's something that the viewer assigns to the acts of the irrational person. Based on your reasoning, insanity also cannot exist as the insane person is acting on reasons that make sense to them, so they are sane in their own worlds... but then we don't judge them based on their own worlds.

[DMC]

Plus it is only irrational to those with a different perception of it, thus why it is relative, and I would argue subjective.

A bit like telling people you went to an Ivy league school when in reality you saw some poison ivy at your school.

[xmas1997]

A bit like telling people you went to an Ivy league school when in reality you saw some poison ivy at your school.

Queer perspective for you, don't you think?

[Chinook]

But illogical isn't something the irrational person self-prescribes. It's something that the viewer assigns to the acts of the irrational person. Based on your reasoning, insanity also cannot exist as the insane person is acting on reasons that make sense to them, so they are sane in their own worlds... but then we don't judge them based on their own worlds.

Logic is just machinery that takes inputs and ejects outputs. You can get the wrong output even if the machinery is working the way it's supposed to if you're getting the wrong input. Like a person who believes their dog is talking to them does so because their brain is stimulated in a way that suggest that to them. If we got the same inputs, we'd believe it as well.

[DMC]

Logic is just machinery that takes inputs and ejects outputs. You can get the wrong output even if the machinery is working the way it's supposed to if you're getting the wrong input. Like a person who believes their dog is talking to them does so because their brain is stimulated in a way that suggest that to them. If we got the same inputs, we'd believe it as well.

I know what logic is. The class didn't begin and end with yours. It's been around for a long, long time.

Your rigid adherence to specific definitions isn't conducive to intelligent conversation. When someone calls a belief illogical, it simply means there are conflicting claims. Your tendency to amplify these things retards the conversation and makes discussing anything with you an exercise in pedantic showmanship.

I realize you're young, but when you age some you'll hopefully come to realize that the purpose of advanced education is to enable communication at a higher level, not to retard it by using pedantic tangents.

[Chinook]

I know what logic is. The class didn't begin and end with yours. It's been around for a long, long time.

Your rigid adherence to specific definitions isn't conducive to intelligent conversation. When someone calls a belief illogical, it simply means there are conflicting claims. Your tendency to amplify these things retards the conversation and makes discussing anything with you an exercise in pedantic showmanship.

I realize you're young, but when you age some you'll hopefully come to realize that the purpose of advanced education is to enable communication at a higher level, not to retard it by using pedantic tangents.

Well, I wasn't talking to you. You jumped in when I was "rigidly adhering to specific definitions" (which is what Xmas and I were talking about) and threw your hat in. The proper course of action is to stay out of the conversation if you don't want to hear it. I imagine you're old enough to realize that.

You're welcome to start a completely different line of argument in this thread, and if it's addressed to me, I'll participate. But it seems silly of your to start a conversation with me about semantics only to complain that the conversation is, in fact, about semantics.

[xmas1997]

Well, I wasn't talking to you. You jumped in when I was "rigidly adhering to specific definitions" (which is what Xmas and I were talking about) and threw your hat in. The proper course of action is to stay out of the conversation if you don't want to hear it. I imagine you're old enough to realize that.

You're welcome to start a completely different line of argument in this thread, and if it's addressed to me, I'll participate. But it seems silly of your to start a conversation with me about semantics only to complain that the conversation is, in fact, about semantics.


:lmao

[DMC]

Well, I wasn't talking to you. You jumped in when I was "rigidly adhering to specific definitions" (which is what Xmas and I were talking about) and threw your hat in. The proper course of action is to stay out of the conversation if you don't want to hear it. I imagine you're old enough to realize that.

You're welcome to start a completely different line of argument in this thread, and if it's addressed to me, I'll participate. But it seems silly of your to start a conversation with me about semantics only to complain that the conversation is, in fact, about semantics.

It wasn't an argument about semantics (mine). It was about reference. I thought I made that clear.

[DMC]

:lmao

What's :lmao is claiming you went to Dartmouth when you only took some classes at Incarnate Word.

[DMC]

Excellent quote, one I try to adhere to.

That's because you believe in science AND medicine.

[Chinook]

It wasn't an argument about semantics (mine). It was about reference. I thought I made that clear.

You jumped in when it was speaking to Xmas about the difference between something being irrational and something being illogical. You then asserted something about rationality as a challenge to my statement on logic. I don't care if you wanted the use the colloquial definition of illogical. It wasn't your conversation.

The (rigid) distinction mattered in the context of mine and Xmas' conversation. I argued that asserting that ,"There can be an idea of god that has no extensions" is illogical, since "having no extensions" is an extension in and of itself. It's not possible to have maintain that belief in one's head. You can hold plenty of irrational beliefs in your head (some of which may end up becoming the rational view later on), so long as none of them are contradicted by logic.

So when you jumped in talking about rationality coloring beliefs, I pretty much said, "Yeah. Who cares, though?" Rationality is relative, while logic is not. So yes, insane people are logical. They act the same way we would if we got their stimuli. Their logic is not what makes them insane. Rather, the fact that they draw strange connections between things is what causes their brains to churn out poor results.

What did you want me to do, stop and have a conversation about things we weren't disagreeing over? That wasn't all that appealing. I couldn't care less about rationality in the context of this thread. The only reason why I addressed it when talking to Xmas was to dismiss it.

[DMC]

You jumped in when it was speaking to Xmas about the difference between something being irrational and something being illogical. You then asserted something about rationality as a challenge to my statement on logic. I don't care if you wanted the use the colloquial definition of illogical. It wasn't your conversation.

The (rigid) distinction mattered in the context of mine and Xmas' conversation. I argued that asserting that ,"There can be an idea of god that has no extensions" is illogical, since "having no extensions" is an extension in and of itself. It's not possible to have maintain that belief in one's head. You can hold plenty of irrational beliefs in your head (some of which may end up becoming the rational view later on), so long as none of them are contradicted by logic.

So when you jumped in talking about rationality coloring beliefs, I pretty much said, "Yeah. Who cares, though?" Rationality is relative, while logic is not. So yes, insane people are logical. They act the same way we would if we got their stimuli. Their logic is not what makes them insane. Rather, the fact that they draw strange connections between things is what causes their brains to churn out poor results.

What did you want me to do, stop and have a conversation about things we weren't disagreeing over? That wasn't all that appealing. I couldn't care less about rationality in the context of this thread. The only reason why I addressed it when talking to Xmas was to dismiss it.

If Xmas believes that there can be an idea of a god that has no extensions, then his belief is illogical according to you, yet you said belief cannot be illogical. If the person believed it to be reasonable, but I believe it to not be, it's illogical to me for him to believe that. So a belief can also be illogical based on reference.

It's too all encompassing to say a belief cannot be illogical especially when you're arguing that a statement is illogical. What if that statement defines a belief?

So if I have a belief that belief is illogical, is that logical? Do yous see the problem here?

[The Reckoning]

Well, I wasn't talking to you. You jumped in when I was "rigidly adhering to specific definitions" (which is what Xmas and I were talking about) and threw your hat in. The proper course of action is to stay out of the conversation if you don't want to hear it. I imagine you're old enough to realize that.

You're welcome to start a completely different line of argument in this thread, and if it's addressed to me, I'll participate. But it seems silly of your to start a conversation with me about semantics only to complain that the conversation is, in fact, about semantics.



:wow

[DMC]

Also, if you want to be pedantic about it, I could have taken you to task over your claim that you defined god by renaming it "prime mover". That's not a definition, just a job title. Either a god is a nebulous, abstract concept or god has attributes. One of those might not exist (abstract) however if god has real attributes, then by necessity it must exist.

So you're not in a different boat just because you define a god as a prime mover, any more than I would be by defining god as "something other than what you think it is".

[Chinook]

If Xmas believes that there can be an idea of a god that has no extensions, then his belief is illogical according to you, yet you said belief cannot be illogical. If the person believed it to be reasonable, but I believe it to not be, it's illogical to me for him to believe that. So a belief can also be illogical based on reference.

It's too all encompassing to say a belief cannot be illogical especially when you're arguing that a statement is illogical. What if that statement defines a belief?

My argument is that Xmas doesn't actually believe that. He's just saying it. Hence the quote from me which started the whole thing in your book:


Not all beliefs are held logically, but none can be held illogically.

Like if you told me you held the belief, "That bachelor is married" I would assume you're either mistaken in what you think the word "bachelor" means or that you are being purposefully obtuse/ironic/implicative. I simply would not accept that that would be a genuine belief, no matter how strongly you tried to convince me of it.


So if I have a belief that belief is illogical, is that logical? Do yous see the problem here?

No. It's neither logical or illogical. It's no different than most other beliefs.

[Chinook]

Also, if you want to be pedantic about it, I could have taken you to task over your claim that you defined god by renaming it "prime mover". That's not a definition, just a job title.

"Being the prime mover" is an attribute. Therefore, it's an extension. So I don't hold the illogical view that god is an idea without extension.


Either a god is a nebulous, abstract concept or god has attributes.

That's a false distinction. Even concepts have attributes. It makes no difference how nebulous the concept is. It needs at least one attribute to ground it for conversation.


So you're not in a different boat just because you define a god as a prime mover, any more than I would be by defining god as "something other than what you think it is".

You can do that if you want? However, assigning PM extensions to god is much more constructive, since that's pretty much what most people really care about. Also, you definition doesn't actually point to anything, so it's a really horrible extension.

[DMC]

My argument is that Xmas doesn't actually believe that. He's just saying it. Hence the quote from me which started the whole thing in your book:


Do you realize that you are dismissing the dictionary's definition of "illogical" as "colloquial" in favor of one you more readily accept?


Like if you told me you held the belief, "That bachelor is married" I would assume you're either mistaken in what you think the word "bachelor" means or that you are being purposefully obtuse/ironic/implicative. I simply would not accept that that would be a genuine belief, no matter how strongly you tried to convince me of it.

There's a difference between believing a married man is single and believing a man who calls himself a bachelor is married, if you don't know the definitions of the words. In that instance the belief would be illogical to you but logical to the person who believes it, or you can dismiss it by saying they don't actually believe it when they say they do. You can educate them and they will change their belief, but at that moment, they believe what they claim to believe.

[Chinook]

Do you realize that you are dismissing the dictionary's definition of "illogical" as "colloquial" in favor of one you more readily accept?

You realize dictionaries focus on colloquial definitions, right?


There's a difference between believing a married man is single and believing a man who calls himself a bachelor is married, if you don't know the definitions of the words. In that instance the belief would be illogical to you but logical to the person who believes it, or you can dismiss it by saying they don't actually believe it when they say they do. You can educate them and they will change their belief, but at that moment, they believe what they claim to believe.

Yes, hence me saying, "...I would assume you're either mistaken in what you think the word "bachelor" means...". My assumption that you didn't know the definition would mean I wouldn't deem you illogical.

[DMC]

"Being the prime mover" is an attribute. Therefore, it's an extension. So I don't hold the illogical view that god is an idea without extension.

You're just using a nebulous term "prime mover" as an escape hatch. It's circular reasoning. There is existence because the prime mover, who exists because there is existence.

Wouldn't "thing" be just as much an attribute?

[Chinook]

You're just using a nebulous term "prime mover" as an escape hatch. It's circular reasoning. There is existence because the prime mover, who exists because there is existence.

I wasn't the first person to bring up the PM on this board, so it's not like I made it up as a trump card. As you know, there are other extensions of god made by others that do not assert he is the prime mover (those who speak of lesser gods in polytheistic religions for example). So it's not meaningless for me to make that connection at all.


Wouldn't "thing" be just as much an attribute?

Depends on what you mean by "thing". If you mean a physical object, then yes. If you just mean an concept, then no.

[DMC]

You realize dictionaries focus on colloquial definitions, right?

So then does the dictionary define "colloquial" wrongly as well? What book do you suggest I use to be on the same page as you where definitions are concerned?


Yes, hence me saying, "...I would assume you're either mistaken in what you think the word "bachelor" means...". My assumption that you didn't know the definition would mean I wouldn't deem you illogical.
You seem to believe that all people think it concepts or images when some just accept statements without knowing their true definitions. I knew a girl who believed the bible could not be burned, literally, because she misunderstood the meaning of a passage. How is that different than someone not understanding the meaning of a word?

[DMC]

I wasn't the first person to bring up the PM on this board, so it's not like I made it up as a trump card. As you know, there are other extensions of god made by others that do not assert he is the prime mover (those who speak of lesser gods in polytheistic religions for example). So it's not meaningless for me to make that connection at all.



Depends on what you mean by "thing". If you mean a physical object, then yes. If you just mean an concept, then no.

It actually is meaningless since you don't say he's the only prime mover.

[Chinook]

So then does the dictionary define "colloquial" wrongly as well? What book do you suggest I use to be on the same page as you where definitions are concerned?

You can just listen to my definitions. Even if you don't agree with them, you know what I mean since I clarify at the beginning. Like you know what I mean when I say something is "illogical" even if you don't think that's what "illogical" means.


You seem to believe that all people think it concepts or images when some just accept statements without knowing their true definitions. I knew a girl who believed the bible could not be burned, literally, because she misunderstood the meaning of a passage. How is that different than someone not understanding the meaning of a word?

It's not. She was mistaken. She wasn't illogical. People can hold wrong beliefs, and do all the time.

[Chinook]

It actually is meaningless since you don't say he's the only prime mover.

Not really. I could care less if there was/is one god or millions. That meant nothing to the thread we were discussing this in.

[mouse]

Atheists don't have to provide proof that god does not exist.

Then they stop saying so.

[101A]

I'll see your Hawking, and raise you an Einstein:


Your question [about God] is the most difficult in the world. It is not a question I can answer simply with yes or no. I am not an Atheist. I do not know if I can define myself as a Pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. May I not reply with a parable? The human mind, no matter how highly trained, cannot grasp the universe. We are in the position of a little child, entering a huge library whose walls are covered to the ceiling with books in many different tongues. The child knows that someone must have written those books. It does not know who or how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child notes a definite plan in the arrangement of the books, a mysterious order, which it does not comprehend, but only dimly suspects. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of the human mind, even the greatest and most cultured, toward God. We see a universe marvelously arranged, obeying certain laws, but we understand the laws only dimly. Our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious force that sways the constellations.

[101A]

Einstein takes stabs at both sides - most believers are children, and atheists are mad at their parents:


"I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_God) is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being."

[DMC]

Not really. I could care less if there was/is one god or millions. That meant nothing to the thread we were discussing this in.

In order for "prime mover" to define a god, there has to be a first cause. If there is no first cause then there is no prime mover ergo no god. How can you define god as something that hasn't been established to exist either? The point of defining the unknown is to make it relate to the known so it can be conceptualized. You're only moving the god further into the unknown and putting the term "prime mover' in it's place. You're renaming the unknown god.

[DMC]

Einstein takes stabs at both sides - most believers are children, and atheists are mad at their parents:

Einstein was in a day and age where he would have been crucified if he said he was atheist. You didn't see many professed atheists in those days, and the closet was full of gays. However, I find it amusing that people look to the science experts as to their beliefs in the supernatural. They do not dabble in such things. When pressed, they will offer an opinion, but it's no better than anyone's opinion. The "we cannot know" excuse is worn out and has been debunked many times over on different levels.

[cantthinkofanything]

So...in a nutshell...don't believe in God and get a disease named after a baseball player. Even though you're a genius physicist. What a slap in the face. Hey...at least it's not, "Al Jolsen's Disease". (no racist)

[RD2191]

You jumped in when it was speaking to Xmas about the difference between something being irrational and something being illogical. You then asserted something about rationality as a challenge to my statement on logic. I don't care if you wanted the use the colloquial definition of illogical. It wasn't your conversation.

The (rigid) distinction mattered in the context of mine and Xmas' conversation. I argued that asserting that ,"There can be an idea of god that has no extensions" is illogical, since "having no extensions" is an extension in and of itself. It's not possible to have maintain that belief in one's head. You can hold plenty of irrational beliefs in your head (some of which may end up becoming the rational view later on), so long as none of them are contradicted by logic.

So when you jumped in talking about rationality coloring beliefs, I pretty much said, "Yeah. Who cares, though?" Rationality is relative, while logic is not. So yes, insane people are logical. They act the same way we would if we got their stimuli. Their logic is not what makes them insane. Rather, the fact that they draw strange connections between things is what causes their brains to churn out poor results.

What did you want me to do, stop and have a conversation about things we weren't disagreeing over? That wasn't all that appealing. I couldn't care less about rationality in the context of this thread. The only reason why I addressed it when talking to Xmas was to dismiss it.
http://heavyeditorial.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/peoplesslideminiopt.gif?w=640

[Chinook]

In order for "prime mover" to define a god, there has to be a first cause. If there is no first cause then there is no prime mover ergo no god.

So?


How can you define god as something that hasn't been established to exist either? The point of defining the unknown is to make it relate to the known so it can be conceptualized. You're only moving the god further into the unknown and putting the term "prime mover' in it's place. You're renaming the unknown god.

I have no idea why that's hard for you to get. You know what I mean when I say "prime mover" (in fact, you're the one you first said it to me), so by me extending "god" that way, you now understand what I mean. That's the point of making extensions. It's not to ground things in reality, at least not directly. If I saw there was no first cause, then I'd believe there was no prime mover and therefore no god.

Like if I defined "Frodo Baggins" to be the hobbit who destroyed the One Ring and ending Sauron's reign, it would be a make sense. That's true even though that definite description is not any more based in reality than Frodo is.

[boutons_deux]

how does quantum mechanics fit into Biblical world-distortion?

Is SH or anybody else necessarily a bad person, immoral, etc, and to be trashed because they "don't believe in (your simplistic, ignorant flavor of) God"?

[Chinook]

how does quantum mechanics fit into Biblical world-distortion?

Is SH or anybody else necessarily a bad person, immoral, etc, and to be trashed because they "don't believe in (your simplistic, ignorant flavor of) God"?

I think the mood of the thread is mostly that no one cares what Hawking thinks about god. Hawking is no more qualified to speak about this than anyone else is, so there's no need to either champion his view or attack him for it.

[silverblk mystix]

I'll see your Hawking, and raise you an Einstein:

Your question [about God] is the most difficult in the world. It is not a question I can answer simply with yes or no. I am not an Atheist. I do not know if I can define myself as a Pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. May I not reply with a parable? The human mind, no matter how highly trained, cannot grasp the universe. We are in the position of a little child, entering a huge library whose walls are covered to the ceiling with books in many different tongues. The child knows that someone must have written those books. It does not know who or how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child notes a definite plan in the arrangement of the books, a mysterious order, which it does not comprehend, but only dimly suspects. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of the human mind, even the greatest and most cultured, toward God. We see a universe marvelously arranged, obeying certain laws, but we understand the laws only dimly. Our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious force that sways the constellations.



If we go by the rationale of the geniuses in here - this Einstein fellow is a really big idiot...



:rollin:rollin:rollin



The "god" question...


Idiot: "just give me a yes or no answer!"

[Spurminator]

Einstein was in a day and age where he would have been crucified if he said he was atheist.

:lol No he wasn't.

[DMC]

So?

So an unknown has unknown attributes and you somehow think that's defining the unknown?


I have no idea why that's hard for you to get. You know what I mean when I say "prime mover" (in fact, you're the one you first said it to me), so by me extending "god" that way, you now understand what I mean. That's the point of making extensions. It's not to ground things in reality, at least not directly. If I saw there was no first cause, then I'd believe there was no prime mover and therefore no god.

Since I said it first, you must have defined god in other terms prior to that. If I say your unknown has unknown attributes, would you think I have assigned attributes to the unknown?


Like if I defined "Frodo Baggins" to be the hobbit who destroyed the One Ring and ending Sauron's reign, it would be a make sense. That's true even though that definite description is not any more based in reality than Frodo is.
That's not the same as saying "something undefined is defined by something undefined"

[Chinook]

So an unknown has unknown attributes and you somehow think that's defining the unknown?

"Being the PM" is not an unknown attribute. It's very clear what that means.


Since I said it first, you must have defined god in other terms prior to that. If I say your unknown has unknown attributes, would you think I have assigned attributes to the unknown?

I did extend god was being the one who set the universe into motion before you used a more succinct term.


That's not the same as saying "something undefined is defined by something undefined"

Again, you seem to have a hang up between something being undefined, and something being unconfirmed. We all (or at least you) know what I mean when I say "first cause" or "prime mover". Therefore, the term "god" is defined just fine. But the existence of a PM is not confirmed, so the existence of god is also not confirmed.

Essentially, I'm arguing that god = prime mover. We spared over whether it makes sense to believe a prime mover exists. You didn't sit there and act like you had no idea what I meant by PM. You went along with it just fine, since everything was defined. But you want me to have actual proof of god's existence (actual physical extensions). If I had that, we wouldn't even be debating, just like we wouldn't if you had proof of a causeless effect.

[mouse]

Until all humans Including ..(Atheist ,Muslims, and Christians can finally agree there had to be some sort of "Designer" instead of a Random explosion in space and four billion years later two horny apes were fucking on the beach and "poof!" there you are fucked up Explorer channel oh you precious missing link......
when those fucked up theories finally fades away only then

we can really move forward.....

https://fbcdn-sphotos-f-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xpf1/v/t1.0-9/73373_121131871392598_1198933795_n.jpg?oh=ba766fea 9445d7afdf33a919c259cef2&oe=548BF0D8&__gda__=1422333281_9308de33568111579700e86c453c7b4 e

[littlecoyotecoin]

Until all humans Including ..(Atheist ,Muslims, and Christians can finally agree there had to be some sort of "Designer" instead of a Random explosion in space and four billion years later two horny apes were fucking on the beach and "poof!" there you are fucked up Explorer channel oh you precious missing link......
when those fucked up theories finally fades away only then

we can really move forward.....

https://fbcdn-sphotos-f-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xpf1/v/t1.0-9/73373_121131871392598_1198933795_n.jpg?oh=ba766fea 9445d7afdf33a919c259cef2&oe=548BF0D8&__gda__=1422333281_9308de33568111579700e86c453c7b4 e

No. But, we may be able to move forward when people like yourself understand that evolution and the existence of a god are two entirely different discussions. The existence of a god being, thus far, impossible for us to show evidence of. Evolution, on the other hand, having mountains of proof as to its validity.

What you should focus your energy toward discrediting is Abiogenesis. It attempts to describe how life arose from nonlife. The evolution genie is already out of the bottle, along with heliocentrism, etc. We know species change over time. We still don't know where life came from, and evolution doesn't attempt to answer that question. Your "poof" betrays your misunderstanding. Even the Pope and Catholic Church have accepted it.

[DMC]

"Being the PM" is not an unknown attribute. It's very clear what that means.

But it's unknown if there actually was a prime mover or a need for one. Saying god is the prime mover is just saying the prime mover is the prime mover or god is god. It does not gain any ground.

Any other analogy you try to use will fail because, for example, in LotR, we know it's fictional. We know they are characters in a book. Even if they weren't, they have a form and a substance that we can envision even if it's not accurate.

I think it's a cop out. I don't think you can believe something exists without having a better grasp on it than "first cause", because there's nothing about a first cause that screams out "must be god". However you're saying a first cause is god or god is the first cause. That doesn't make god first cause like.. or make the first cause god like, it's just using the same nebulous image with two different names.



I did extend god was being the one who set the universe into motion before you used a more succinct term.

Even that is a nebulous concept. What does it mean to set the universe into motion? We aren't discussing existence here, just definitions. Again you've used a concept that's not well defined to define an unknown.


Again, you seem to have a hang up between something being undefined, and something being unconfirmed. We all (or at least you) know what I mean when I say "first cause" or "prime mover". Therefore, the term "god" is defined just fine. But the existence of a PM is not confirmed, so the existence of god is also not confirmed.


If you cannot define god by saying "it's a god" then you cannot define it by using the tautology "it's a prime mover". It's just a different word that means god.


Essentially, I'm arguing that god = prime mover. We spared over whether it makes sense to believe a prime mover exists. You didn't sit there and act like you had no idea what I meant by PM. You went along with it just fine, since everything was defined. But you want me to have actual proof of god's existence (actual physical extensions). If I had that, we wouldn't even be debating, just like we wouldn't if you had proof of a causeless effect.
I know what the term "prime mover" means. I also know what the term "god" means, I went along with that as well. They both mean the same thing. You just want to use one to define the other and that doesn't advance the conversation. You've not defined god at all by calling it the prime mover just as you've not defined the prime mover by calling it god.

I'd be more willing to accept that, if you ever found a prime mover to exist, you'd call it god rather than, if you ever found a god to exist, you'd call it prime mover.

[Chinook]

I know what the term "prime mover" means. I also know what the term "god" means, I went along with that as well. They both mean the same thing.

Easily the most important part of you post. I assert that god=PM. That's not a necessary extension. There were people who believed that Ares was a god while also believing that Ares was not the PM. You know that I consider god to be the PM; therefore you accept that I have made an extension for the term. So my position is not illogical.


Any other analogy you try to use will fail because, for example, in LotR, we know it's fictional. We know they are characters in a book. Even if they weren't, they have a form and a substance that we can envision even if it's not accurate.

That's just a way to try to get out of the argument. It doesn't matter than LotR is fictional. Definite descriptions are just ways to tag ideas. There's no difference between "real" ideas and "fake" ones.

For your benefit, though, I will give you another one:

Let's say I assert the belief: Aliens exist. I extend "alien" to "intelligent lifeforms on a planet other than Earth." We have no idea if there are aliens, and we don't know there are intelligent lifeforms. Indeed, there's a host of questions about what it means to be intelligent, what it means to be a lifeform, even what it means be on a planet. But no one thinks that it's impossible to hold that belief.

[DMC]

Easily the most important part of you post. I assert that god=PM. That's not a necessary extension. There were people who believed that Ares was a god while also believing that Ares was not the PM. You know that I consider god to be the PM; therefore you accept that I have made an extension for the term. So my position is not illogical.

But you haven't defined god. You've only named it.


That's just a way to try to get out of the argument. It doesn't matter than LotR is fictional. Definite descriptions are just ways to tag ideas. There's no difference between "real" ideas and "fake" ones.

"Prime mover" isn't a description. It does not clear the picture of your god any more than not calling it the prime mover. It's pointless to attempt to define the unknown with the unknown. No one here has any idea what a prime mover is, so saying your god is one is no different than saying "god is a florndorfinitial". What is a florndorfinitial? It doesn't matter what it is, because whatever it is, that's what god is. Whatever the prime mover is, that what you are saying god is, but it doesn't paint any clearer a picture of how you even view your god so it's pointless and yes it's illogical. It's a tautology.


For your benefit, though, I will give you another one:

Let's say I assert the belief: Aliens exist. I extend "alien" to "intelligent lifeforms on a planet other than Earth." We have no idea if there are aliens, and we don't know there are intelligent lifeforms. Indeed, there's a host of questions about what it means to be intelligent, what it means to be a lifeform, even what it means be on a planet. But no one thinks that it's impossible to hold that belief.
We know what "intelligent life form" means. We have standards we use to determine that. We don't know what a universal prime mover is, because we don't have standards to determine that. We cannot even say there was a first cause. We can say there is intelligent life somewhere, even here on this planet (oddly enough).

Not all aliens are intelligent life forms, as a rock can be alien to this planet. Not all intelligent life forms are alien. Are all prime movers gods? Are all gods prime movers?

[Chinook]

But you haven't defined god. You've only named it.

I extended it.


"Prime mover" isn't a description. It does not clear the picture of your god any more than not calling it the prime mover. It's pointless to attempt to define the unknown with the unknown. No one here has any idea what a prime mover is, so saying your god is one is no different than saying "god is a florndorfinitial". What is a florndorfinitial? It doesn't matter what it is, because whatever it is, that's what god is.

What you're saying is the equivalent of saying that saying "Hiesraj is the queen of Xycoike" is not informative because you don't know what the queen of Xycoike is. It makes no sense. The sentence is meant not for you to understand everything. It's meant for you to create a mental folder titled "Hiesraj" and then to add the file "queen of Xycoike" to is.


Whatever the prime mover is, that what you are saying god is, but it doesn't paint any clearer a picture of how you even view your god so it's pointless and yes it's illogical. It's a tautology.

Google "tautology", would you? You'd see that the third definition it pulls up is:


logic: a statement that is true by necessity or by virtue of its logical form.

Meaning that the bolded part of your above quote is illogical. Me making an identity claim (which I'm not, but you seem to be unable to get that) is completely logical.


We know what "intelligent life form" means. We have standards we use to determine that. We don't know what a universal prime mover is, because we don't have standards to determine that. We cannot even say there was a first cause. We can say there is intelligent life somewhere, even here on this planet (oddly enough).

You sure seem to know:


I know what the term "prime mover" means.

I'm starting to think you just fundamentally don't understand this. We're talking about extensions here, which means little bullet points that a person makes under the subject. So I am pretty much saying that under the headline "God", I have one bullet point, which reads, "is the prime mover". Other people will have different bullet points, like "omniscient", "benevolent", or "the children of the titans". People don't have to have the same extensions for terms. They just need to clarify in a conversations which extensions they have. This is something I have done numerous times on this issue.


Not all aliens are intelligent life forms, as a rock can be alien to this planet. Not all intelligent life forms are alien. Are all prime movers gods? Are all gods prime movers?

Completely missed the point. In a trivial way, we already know there are aliens, because we've found bacteria on Mars. But no one really thinks we've settled that debate yet. If you've extended aliens to be anything outside of Earth, then you've already won. If you extend it as bipedal creatures with huge black eyes and ray guns, then you've still got work to do. Hence why extensions are important.

[DMC]

Let's get this out of the way first.

You did not present anything in formal logic. You presented rhetorical logic.

Tautology

Tautology in formal logic refers to a statement that must be true in every interpretation by its very construction. In rhetorical logic, it is an argument that utilizes circular reasoning, which means that the conclusion is also its own premise. Typically the premise is simply restated in the conclusion, without adding additional information or clarification. The structure of such arguments is A=B therefore A=B, although the premise and conclusion might be formulated differently so it is not immediately apparent as such. For example, saying that therapeutic touch works because it manipulates the life force is a tautology because the definition of therapeutic touch is the alleged manipulation (without touching) of the life force.


You are saying god is the prime mover, but the only reason you think a god exists is because you think the prime mover exists. If you did not see need for a prime mover you would not see need for a god. So by very definition, a prime mover to you would be god. Ergo you are not extending anything. If there are two prime movers, there are two gods. If there are 100 billion prime movers, there are 100 billion gods. This is according to you.

The extensions other people use are actually descriptions. Prime mover is a title. Bestowing another title upon something doesn't define it. Benevolence is an attribute, omniscience is an attribute, but prime mover is not an attribute, but you seem to have go away from using the term "attribute". Have you abandoned it?

Attribute: a quality or feature regarded as a characteristic or inherent part of someone or something. How can "prime mover" be an inherent part of god, or a characteristic of god? The ability to prime move could be, but the title cannot, and you're using the term "prime mover" in a accusatory way, saying god was the one who did the prime moving, but that doesn't make it an attribute of god right now.

[Chinook]

You've really seemed to have fallen off over the course of this thread. It's a little concerning, coming from you.

Oh well, let's go down the list.


Let's get this out of the way first.

You did not present anything in formal logic. You presented rhetorical logic.

Tautology

A tautology is not informative. That doesn't mean that it's illogical. No self-evident truth is informative. Like is it illogical to believe it's raining outside because you belief it's raining outside? Nope.


You are saying god is the prime mover, but the only reason you think a god exists is because you think the prime mover exists. If you did not see need for a prime mover you would not see need for a god. So by very definition, a prime mover to you would be god. Ergo you are not extending anything. If there are two prime movers, there are two gods. If there are 100 billion prime movers, there are 100 billion gods. This is according to you.

As I've said many times, no. God=PM for me because I think that "being the PM" is the only necessary extension to give. But that is not the case with everyone. Some people add other extensions on top of "being the PM", while others leave off "being the PM" entirely. That means that in the world, God != PM.


The extensions other people use are actually descriptions. Prime mover is a title. Bestowing another title upon something doesn't define it. Benevolence is an attribute, omniscience is an attribute, but prime mover is not an attribute, but you seem to have go away from using the term "attribute". Have you abandoned it?

It does extend it. Like if I said that Obama was the president of the United States, when the idea of Obama is extended. Really, though, you're sort of just throwing up all over yourself here. You know what it means to be the prime mover. The term is not just gibberish to you. Therefore, me saying it is informative to you. If I had said originally that I believed existence has always been here, but that a god has always been here as well, would you argue that being was not god BECAUSE he didn't create existence?


Attribute: a quality or feature regarded as a characteristic or inherent part of someone or something. How can "prime mover" be an inherent part of god, or a characteristic of god? The ability to prime move could be, but the title cannot, and you're using the term "prime mover" in a accusatory way, saying god was the one who did the prime moving, but that doesn't make it an attribute of god right now.

"Prime mover" isn't what I'm extending. "Is/was/being the prime mover" is. You keep acting like Prime Mover is a name, but it's not. It's a definite description. It means he/they was the first to start moving the causal chain. That means he did something. What you're saying is like saying that "Went to the moon" is not a characteristic of Neil Armstrong. It's just rather silly.

[Chinook]

Also, my argument isn't even circular. It's not like I said I believe in god because I believe in there being a PM, and I believe there being a PM because I believe in god. I said I believe in god because I believe in there being a PM, and I believe in there being a PM because (entire thread full of reasoning, none of which was based using god as evidence of a PM).

[DMC]

You've really seemed to have fallen off over the course of this thread. It's a little concerning, coming from you.

Oh well, let's go down the list.



A tautology is not informative. That doesn't mean that it's illogical. No self-evident truth is informative. Like is it illogical to believe it's raining outside because you belief it's raining outside? Nope.

You were using rhetorical logic. You don't seem keen on acknowledging anything, just changing directions. In rhetorical logic, a tautology is saying the same thing in two different ways and using one to prove the other. You're saying the PM=God and God=PM. You use the PM to claim that something must have done it ergo god. If that's the case, the God is contingent upon the PM instead of the PM being contingent upon god. We know that's silly though, so then god and PM are one and the same to you, ergo you are not extending anything. Definition, clarity, resolution, all these are about focusing and getting a clearer picture but renaming god to PM doesn't do any of those three things since first cause isn't established. You're saying an unestablished being is defined by an unestablished act.

No, past events are not attributes. Attributes are characteristics, unless you are using a different definition of the word "attribute" which would be to a cause that leads to an effect. If so, then you are using circular reasoning by saying being the first cause is the cause that lead to an effect, and by saying so somehow that defines god.

No, you've abandoned the term "attribute" in your responses and moved to "extension". If you wish to acknowledge that you did not give an attribute of god, I will accept that.



As I've said many times, no. God=PM for me because I think that "being the PM" is the only necessary extension to give. But that is not the case with everyone. Some people add other extensions on top of "being the PM", while others leave off "being the PM" entirely. That means that in the world, God != PM.

Acts are not extensions. Since there can be no more prime moving, the term "prime mover" indicates a past tense and should be preceded by "was" if used correctly to describe something god was. My mother was a birth giver to me, but that doesn't define or resolve who she is at the moment. Benevolence and omniscience defines who god is, not what god did. They are not the same as "prime mover". Obama is currently the POTUS. In the future, calling him the POTUS would not be correct if he's no longer the POTUS. If he was the 1st POTUS, you'd have to say "was". However, that's not something that's decided based on teleological reasoning, it's based on gathered information and what we call facts. Obama is the POTUS. POTUS has defined characteristics. Prime mover does not. We don't know what a prime mover can do, could do, might be able to do, nothing about it because we don't know that one has ever existed. Prime mover might be god of necessity or it might not be. You're defining god as something else you believe happened, not as some characteristic you believe that god possesses.



It does extend it. Like if I said that Obama was the president of the United States, when the idea of Obama is extended. Really, though, you're sort of just throwing up all over yourself here. You know what it means to be the prime mover. The term is not just gibberish to you. Therefore, me saying it is informative to you. If I had said originally that I believed existence has always been here, but that a god has always been here as well, would you argue that being was not god BECAUSE he didn't create existence?



"Prime mover" isn't what I'm extending. "Is/was/being the prime mover" is. You keep acting like Prime Mover is a name, but it's not. It's a definite description. It means he/they was the first to start moving the causal chain. That means he did something. What you're saying is like saying that "Went to the moon" is not a characteristic of Neil Armstrong. It's just rather silly.

I addressed this earlier. How could you identify Neil Armstrong using laboratory instruments and your 5 senses by someone claiming he went to the moon? Look for moon dust? You'd have to look for articles that showed his photo, and from there you'd use a different set of criteria (looks) or you'd find family members using DNA he left in the capsule, again, different criteria.

Your extension does not clarify god. It's no different than not defining god at all.

[Chinook]

If that's the case, the God is contingent upon the PM instead of the PM being contingent upon god.

No. My argument for a PM wasn't, "There has to have been a god; therefore there is a PM." I had a whole thread full of argument for a PM, why it's reasonable for one to exist. Not a one of them had to do with god.


No, past events are not attributes. Attributes are characteristics, unless you are using a different definition of the word "attribute" which would be to a cause that leads to an effect. If so, then you are using circular reasoning by saying being the first cause is the cause that lead to an effect, and by saying so somehow that defines god.

No, you've abandoned the term "attribute" in your responses and moved to "extension". If you wish to acknowledge that you did not give an attribute of god, I will accept that.

Just silly. I started off talking about extensions. You wanted to use attributes. I humored you. But ideas don't have to have characteristics in the same way objects do. If you want to relegate "attribute" to be some physical descriptor, then fine by me. I'll stick to the topic and use the term I came in using.


Acts are not extensions. Since there can be no more prime moving, the term "prime mover" indicates a past tense and should be preceded by "was" if used correctly to describe something god was. My mother was a birth giver to me, but that doesn't define or resolve who she is at the moment. Benevolence and omniscience defines who god is, not what god did. They are not the same as "prime mover". Obama is currently the POTUS. In the future, calling him the POTUS would not be correct if he's no longer the POTUS. If he was the 1st POTUS, you'd have to say "was". However, that's not something that's decided based on teleological reasoning, it's based on gathered information and what we call facts. Obama is the POTUS. POTUS has defined characteristics. Prime mover does not. We don't know what a prime mover can do, could do, might be able to do, nothing about it because we don't know that one has ever existed. Prime mover might be god of necessity or it might not be. You're defining god as something else you believe happened, not as some characteristic you believe that god possesses.

No. The separation between "is" and "was" is based on whether or not god still exists. If he does, then he IS the PM. If he doesn't, then he WAS the PM. If George Washington were alive, he'd still be the first POTUS, because no one else would have taken that title from him.


I addressed this earlier. How could you identify Neil Armstrong using laboratory instruments and your 5 senses by someone claiming he went to the moon? Look for moon dust? You'd have to look for articles that showed his photo, and from there you'd use a different set of criteria (looks) or you'd find family members using DNA he left in the capsule, again, different criteria.

That argument was silly then. It makes no difference if Armstrong ever went to the moon. All that matters is that people think of it when they think of him. You don't have to verify something to make the extension. But falsifying it would eliminate the extension, or at least alter it. Like if I extended "DMC" to be an older white man, it wouldn't matter that you might actually be a young Latina woman. I would have been wrong, but not illogical, or irrational, or unreasonable.

Fundamentally, I think you have forgotten what this conversation was about. It's not about proving the veracity of god, or even vetting the rational behind my interpretation of theism. It's about whether attributing PM status to god is informative -- that is, whether saying, "God set into motion what we call existence," is the same thing as saying, "God is god". They're not the same thing. If anyone out there considers there to be a god that did not set into motion existence, then god cannot equal PM universally (and yes, that is a formal logic statement that's translated into English for your benefit). As I've demonstrated many times, and as you have let flow through just as many, there are indeed such people.

[Chinook]

Also, in case you're wondering, no, I'm not using "extension" in the philosophical or logical sense. The technical term for what I am describing is "intension" (with the 's'). But that is rather strange to introduce when "extension" was working just fine. If you actually care, though, here's the Wiki on it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intension

[cantthinkofanything]

You've got a long way to go to catch the moon landing thread. Better get after it.

[DMC]

No. My argument for a PM wasn't, "There has to have been a god; therefore there is a PM." I had a whole thread full of argument for a PM, why it's reasonable for one to exist. Not a one of them had to do with god.



Just silly. I started off talking about extensions. You wanted to use attributes. I humored you. But ideas don't have to have characteristics in the same way objects do. If you want to relegate "attribute" to be some physical descriptor, then fine by me. I'll stick to the topic and use the term I came in using.


"Being the prime mover" is an attribute. Therefore, it's an extension. So I don't hold the illogical view that god is an idea without extension. - You



No. The separation between "is" and "was" is based on whether or not god still exists. If he does, then he IS the PM. If he doesn't, then he WAS the PM. If George Washington were alive, he'd still be the first POTUS, because no one else would have taken that title from him.


No it doesn't. Otherwise there is no reason for past tense when referring to prior actions. Did you ever get a question in school "who is the first president of the US?" or is it "who was the first president of the US?"

Does god prime move or did god prime move?


That argument was silly then. It makes no difference if Armstrong ever went to the moon. All that matters is that people think of it when they think of him. You don't have to verify something to make the extension. But falsifying it would eliminate the extension, or at least alter it. Like if I extended "DMC" to be an older white man, it wouldn't matter that you might actually be a young Latina woman. I would have been wrong, but not illogical, or irrational, or unreasonable.

You haven't even remotely addressed my point.

Theists (and deists as well it seems) fail to define that which they claim to believe exists. By doing so they insulate it and themselves from critical examination.


Fundamentally, I think you have forgotten what this conversation was about. It's not about proving the veracity of god, or even vetting the rational behind my interpretation of theism. It's about whether attributing PM status to god is informative -- that is, whether saying, "God set into motion what we call existence," is the same thing as saying, "God is god". They're not the same thing. If anyone out there considers there to be a god that did not set into motion existence, then god cannot equal PM universally (and yes, that is a formal logic statement that's translated into English for your benefit). As I've demonstrated many times, and as you have let flow through just as many, there are indeed such people.
"Creator" or "prime mover" isn't an informative comment about god. It would only be informative if no one knew what the word "god" meant, but since we have established what the word "god" means, we have to take a step further to define it and renaming it doesn't do that. Saying Venus is the goddess of love at least shows Venus is a female, and that Venus is all about love. Saying Venus is Aphrodite does not define Venus any more than just saying "Venus".

[Chinook]

"Being the prime mover" is an attribute. Therefore, it's an extension. So I don't hold the illogical view that god is an idea without extension. - You

And it is. All attributes are extensions.


No it doesn't. Otherwise there is no reason for past tense when referring to prior actions. Did you ever get a question in school "who is the first president of the US?" or is it "who was the first president of the US?"

Does god prime move or did god prime move?

Is Warren Moon the first black QB to be enshrined in the NFL HoF or was he? He is, because no one else will ever take that from him. When he dies, it will become true that he "was".


You haven't even remotely addressed my point.

Theists (and deists as well it seems) fail to define that which they claim to believe exists. By doing so they insulate it and themselves from critical examination.

No. Your point is just silly. It doesn't deserve a better retort than that. You don't have to be able to physically test intensionality (having extensions, as I have been calling them). I don't even know why you have that idea.


"Creator" or "prime mover" isn't an informative comment about god. It would only be informative if no one knew what the word "god" meant, but since we have established what the word "god" means, we have to take a step further to define it and renaming it doesn't do that. Saying Venus is the goddess of love at least shows Venus is a female, and that Venus is all about love. Saying Venus is Aphrodite does not define Venus any more than just saying "Venus".

Completely missed it again. "Prime mover" is not just another term for "god". People believed that Aphrodite was a god(dess) while also believing she was not the prime mover. That's all it takes for those two terms to be separable. That's like saying "being teh first POTUS is not informative" for George Washington.

But more importantly, "prime mover" is not a name, like John or Greg. It's a definite description, meaning it is including a tie to other things within itself. You know what the PM is -- you've said so numerous times. So it's not just an empty string of letters. It's like saying, "first human to set foot on North America" is meaningless because we don't know what they looked like.

[DMC]

And it is. All attributes are extensions.

Even Spinoza defined god better than that.


Is Warren Moon the first black QB to be enshrined in the NFL HoF or was he? He is, because no one else will ever take that from him. When he dies, it will become true that he "was".

So then you agree that "prime mover" is about the past, not the present. You don't define god as a present prime mover, but as the first cause when it occurred. You are attributing the first cause to god, which is a different definition of the word "attribute" than you are equivocating it with by basically using it to define the essence of god. Attributes in the sense of extension should define essence, not roles.


No. Your point is just silly. It doesn't deserve a better retort than that. You don't have to be able to physically test intensionality (having extensions, as I have been calling them). I don't even know why you have that idea.

So then you subscribe to the notion of a personal god, one who is shaped to fit your description instead of a substance that you work to define? It's the typical theist (and deist) mantra that they can believe what they want to believe, and then pretend there's rationale behind it but scoff at the notion that it has to be testable or falsifiable.


Completely missed it again. "Prime mover" is not just another term for "god". People believed that Aphrodite was a god(dess) while also believing she was not the prime mover. That's all it takes for those two terms to be separable. That's like saying "being teh first POTUS is not informative" for George Washington.

Is Aphrodite not a goddess? Is Zeus not a god? Their essences have been defined better than just an association with an event.


But more importantly, "prime mover" is not a name, like John or Greg. It's a definite description, meaning it is including a tie to other things within itself. You know what the PM is -- you've said so numerous times. So it's not just an empty string of letters. It's like saying, "first human to set foot on North America" is meaningless because we don't know what they looked like.
It doesn't even define how many movers you are referring to. There could be an infinite amount of prime movers. In that case, you cannot say the term "prime mover" is an extension since extensions, by nature, are divisible.

[Leetonidas]

Maybe if that lou gehrig faggot believed in the almighty gawd he wouldn't be paralyzed tbh probably why he so mad at gaaaaaaawd :cry

[DMC]

I find it incredibly ironic that he has that disease tbh.

[mouse]

Atheists don't have to provide proof that god does not exist.




Then stop saying so.

[mouse]

No. But, we may be able to move forward when people like yourself understand that evolution and the existence of a god are two entirely different discussions.

says who?



The existence of a god being, thus far, impossible for us to show evidence of. Evolution, on the other hand, having mountains of proof as to its validity.

What you should focus your energy toward discrediting is Abiogenesis. It attempts to describe how life arose from nonlife. The evolution genie is already out of the bottle, along with heliocentrism, etc. We know species change over time. We still don't know where life came from, and evolution doesn't attempt to answer that question. Your "poof" betrays your misunderstanding.

I will stick to my own conclusions I took time researching.



Even the Pope and Catholic Church have accepted it.

they also accepted sex with boys what does that say?

[spurraider21]

says who?
that's not a matter of opinion. they are two different debates. if you have theists who believe in evolution, that alone is enough to demonstrate they are not mutually exclusive



I will stick to my own conclusions I took time researching.
you mean like the astounding video that talks about how numbers being very precise = there is a god?



they also accepted sex with boys what does that say?
the church has never accepted sex with boys. members of the church have taken that action, though

[pubic hair]

WE are Aliens People! We got left behind while Exploring! We are the dumb fucks that didn't make sure we were on the ship when it left. It's really that simple.

[spurraider21]

technically if we are born here then we aren't aliens. our ancestors may have been

[Chinook]

Even Spinoza defined god better than that.

Ugh. You're hard-headed. No one except for you is talking about "define" to mean as an exhaustive list of qualities. It's just been you digging in this whole time, because you haven't had a point on the actual topic of conversation.


So then you agree that "prime mover" is about the past, not the present. You don't define god as a present prime mover, but as the first cause when it occurred. You are attributing the first cause to god, which is a different definition of the word "attribute" than you are equivocating it with by basically using it to define the essence of god. Attributes in the sense of extension should define essence, not roles.

Ignoring the "define" thing for a moment, no. God is still the prime mover, because nothing else will ever be the prime mover again. But even if I were to agree that that was a past title, it doesn't stop it from being an extension. Like an extension for Columbus is that he landed on Hispanola. But plenty of people had done it before him, and plenty did it after him. Doesn't mean that that's not something someone thinks of when talking about Columbus.


So then you subscribe to the notion of a personal god, one who is shaped to fit your description instead of a substance that you work to define? It's the typical theist (and deist) mantra that they can believe what they want to believe, and then pretend there's rationale behind it but scoff at the notion that it has to be testable or falsifiable.

Again ignoring your attempts to equate extensions to definitions. Do I think belief in a god is a personal thing? Yes. But do I think that people who don't believe in god are being rational? No. And yes, I think it's borderline idiotic to pretend that things have to be testable to be true or believed to be true. Only people who don't understand epistemology think that.


Is Aphrodite not a goddess? Is Zeus not a god? Their essences have been defined better than just an association with an event.

Oh good, the same argument written again. I would not say Aphrodite is a god, because she was not the prime mover. However, other people would disagree with that. That's why it's informative that I say "God = PM", because it separates my idea of god from those people's.

In any event, you would agree that Aprhodite would not classify as a god even if she is real, since you can't seem to separate god from the PM in your mind.


It doesn't even define how many movers you are referring to. There could be an infinite amount of prime movers. In that case, you cannot say the term "prime mover" is an extension since extensions, by nature, are divisible.

Um...the hell did you get that idea from? Anyway, infinity is a concept that cannot be tested in the world. There's no way to verify it, yet you can understand it's extensions (what the word means) just fine. Yet, you shouldn't be able to, since in your mind, extensions have to be testable.

[Chinook]

DMC, we're not talking about the actual god, whatever that means. This whole debate's been about the word. Words have to have definitions (meaning they have to have at least one extension). Xmas and SBM argued that "god" has no definition to them, but they still tried to use it as a meaningful term. Not having a definition is completely different from having a definition that some people reject. When you reject a definition, at least you have some ability to know what you're rejecting. When you don't have a definition at all, then there's nothing to say one way or another.

If I say, "I believe in Fpeknied", are you going to tell me I'm right or wrong, or are you going to say you have no idea what I'm talking about?

[Jeff Leppard]

Nothing is worse than two idiots who think they are smart having a philosophical debate.

[pubic hair]

technically if we are born here then we aren't aliens. our ancestors may have been

ouyah reay orrectcay, ancay ouyay eadray hatway iay ritingway?

[spurraider21]

I can read what you're writing. Pig Latin is annoying tho :lol

[DMC]

Nothing is worse than two idiots who think they are smart having a philosophical debate.
My balls slamming against your chin like a high speed sewing machine, preparing to fertilize your throat egg, that could be worse for you or it could be common place.

[DMC]

Ugh. You're hard-headed. No one except for you is talking about "define" to mean as an exhaustive list of qualities. It's just been you digging in this whole time, because you haven't had a point on the actual topic of conversation.

Attributes and extension provide the essence of the substance.


Ignoring the "define" thing for a moment, no. God is still the prime mover, because nothing else will ever be the prime mover again. But even if I were to agree that that was a past title, it doesn't stop it from being an extension. Like an extension for Columbus is that he landed on Hispanola. But plenty of people had done it before him, and plenty did it after him. Doesn't mean that that's not something someone thinks of when talking about Columbus.

But you know what landed means, and you know what Hispanola is, and we both can agree to that. You haven't the foggiest what prime mover even means, you only have a rough video game like perception of it and I don't even have that.


Again ignoring your attempts to equate extensions to definitions. Do I think belief in a god is a personal thing? Yes. But do I think that people who don't believe in god are being rational? No. And yes, I think it's borderline idiotic to pretend that things have to be testable to be true or believed to be true. Only people who don't understand epistemology think that.

Truth isn't determined by a being testable. It's true, there is no other answer. Claims have to be testable, they have to be falsifiable, and the god claim is just that, a claim and it's not testable and it's not falsifiable. You cannot make it true through shutting the door to examination. You can say it's true for you, but that doesn't make it true.


Oh good, the same argument written again. I would not say Aphrodite is a god, because she was not the prime mover. However, other people would disagree with that. That's why it's informative that I say "God = PM", because it separates my idea of god from those people's.


Then who was Aphrodite if not a goddess? Fiction or fact, it's unfalsifiable so we should assume it's true.


In any event, you would agree that Aprhodite would not classify as a god even if she is real, since you can't seem to separate god from the PM in your mind.

You cannot separate god from the PM since you said GOD=PM. I don't believe there was a 1st cause and I don't believe there was/is a god. I have to argue from the foundation you've laid.
[quote]
Um...the hell did you get that idea from? Anyway, infinity is a concept that cannot be tested in the world. There's no way to verify it, yet you can understand it's extensions (what the word means) just fine. Yet, you shouldn't be able to, since in your mind, extensions have to be testable.

If "prime mover" is an extension, it's one extension and it's one attribute. If there are an infinite limit of prime movers, there is no way for there to be a single prime mover. The infinity of prime movement cannot be divided into individual prime movers, ergo your god cannot exist if there is an infinity of prime movement. During the prime movement, there had to have been an infinity of prime movement as there was nothing but prime movement and there was no beginning since time was not in existence, and there was no end since there was no beginning. Concepts with no beginning or end either do not exist or they are infinite.This means that your monotheistic approach is flawed. Your god either does not exist or your god is infinite, which means you cannot extend it.

[mouse]

that's not a matter of opinion.

Then why were forums created?



they are two different debates. if you have theists who believe in evolution, that alone is enough to demonstrate they are not mutually exclusive

You sound like you know what your talking about I think your just missed understood I haven't started debating yet just putting in my 2 cents and in my defense I did see the word "God" in the topic subject so its not like this topic wasn't going to go down the Evolution path why wouldn't it?

In any event I would love to debate any of the topics you want to address. Since you can reply w/o all the re fried outdated immature comments you see in almost every topic these days.



you mean like the astounding video

I am sensing sarcasm....... and I just posted how mature I thought you were...............
,


that talks about how numbers being very precise



Are you saying Science doesn't use numbers that are precise?



= there is a god?

When did you see me post there is a "God"?




the church has never accepted sex with boys.

Just the priest got it!



members of the church have taken that action, though

You call 1,000 years of abuse of young sweet tight alter boys working 24/7 late at night lighting candles with a horny no pussy getting 50 year old men and if he gets caught gets transferred to another church "Taking Action"? then I take back what I said about your ability to debate intelligently.


http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/72320000/jpg/_72320711_020641459-1.jpg

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26044852

r7Th6xo9vxM

rpDJhCVTItg

[AaronY]

one star thread, would not read again

[mouse]

one star thread, would not read again

You have proof you read it the first time?

[Jeff Leppard]

My balls slamming against your chin like a high speed sewing machine, preparing to fertilize your throat egg, that could be worse for you or it could be common place.

Well, at the very least you try really hard.

[maverick1948]

For all you folks who believe in the Big Bang happening, tell me one thing. Where did the speck that blew up come from?

[Chinook]

Attributes and extension provide the essence of the substance.

That's exactly wrong.


But you know what landed means, and you know what Hispanola is, and we both can agree to that. You haven't the foggiest what prime mover even means, you only have a rough video game like perception of it and I don't even have that.

Do you seriously not know what the words "prime" and "mover" mean? You've said quite a few times now that you understand the term, its intension (what I've been calling the extension). You just don't understand the extension (what you also called the reference). Those are two different things, though.


Truth isn't determined by a being testable. It's true, there is no other answer. Claims have to be testable, they have to be falsifiable, and the god claim is just that, a claim and it's not testable and it's not falsifiable. You cannot make it true through shutting the door to examination. You can say it's true for you, but that doesn't make it true.

A random split on your part. Claims don't have to be testable, since they are assertions of belief. Not all beliefs are testable, as we've already established quite some time ago.


Then who was Aphrodite if not a goddess? Fiction or fact, it's unfalsifiable so we should assume it's true.

A random critique. You agree (to a point that you're confusing yourself) that "being/was the prime mover" is a necessary characteristic of god. Since no account of Aprhodite gives her that quality, you have to assume she isn't/wasn't the PM, and therefore not god by your (and my) definition. You can't both assert that Aprhodite is a goddess while also asserting that she cannot be god (at least not without making a distinction between the extensions of "god" and "goddess"). So you should just drop this line of reasoning. It's illogical.


You cannot separate god from the PM since you said GOD=PM. I don't believe there was a 1st cause and I don't believe there was/is a god. I have to argue from the foundation you've laid.

Not true at all in this thread. I'm not talking about my own theistic beliefs. I'm talking about the word. "God" can mean different things to different people, which is why people need to clarify the extensions they hold. I simply said that one cannot say they hold no extensions for the word while also assigning the word meaning. It makes no sense.


If "prime mover" is an extension, it's one extension and it's one attribute. If there are an infinite limit of prime movers, there is no way for there to be a single prime mover. The infinity of prime movement cannot be divided into individual prime movers, ergo your god cannot exist if there is an infinity of prime movement. During the prime movement, there had to have been an infinity of prime movement as there was nothing but prime movement and there was no beginning since time was not in existence, and there was no end since there was no beginning. Concepts with no beginning or end either do not exist or they are infinite.This means that your monotheistic approach is flawed. Your god either does not exist or your god is infinite, which means you cannot extend it.

Still have no idea where you get this from. You just extended god by calling him "infinite". Of course, as I said a while back, infinity is merely a concept with no possible extension (referent) in what we know as existence. Due to your self-imposed constraints, you simply cannot use that term meaningfully.

[spurraider21]

For all you folks who believe in the Big Bang happening, tell me one thing. Where did the speck that blew up come from?
don't know. and we're ok with that.


the idea of the big bang is not some age old theory that scientists are going out actively trying to prove. hope that's not how you view the scientific community's contribution to the big bang theory

[Chinook]

The idea about the Big Bang is pretty much the result of looking at the radiation of matter and energy throughout the universe. It's much easier to support than the doctrine on evolution, in my opinion. It's not a creation myth/theory, and shouldn't be taken as one by people of either side. It's merely an event that is assumed to have happened to explain a lot of math.

[littlecoyotecoin]

For all you folks who believe in the Big Bang happening, tell me one thing. Where did the speck that blew up come from?

That brilliant "gotcha" moment brought to you by the makers of: "Where did god come from?"

[DMC]

That's exactly wrong.


In philosophy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy), essence is the attribute or set of attributes that make an entity or substance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substance_theory) what it fundamentally is, and which it has by necessity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysical_necessity), and without which it loses its identity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_identity).


Do you seriously not know what the words "prime" and "mover" mean? You've said quite a few times now that you understand the term, its intension (what I've been calling the extension). You just don't understand the extension (what you also called the reference). Those are two different things, though.

I do. I taught you, remember? Problem is that it employs special pleading. Nothing can come from nothing, except to solve the problem of existence. You solve the problem you've created by violating the rules that caused the problem you created and expect me to see it as plausible. If the rules aren't that important, why use them?


A random split on your part. Claims don't have to be testable, since they are assertions of belief. Not all beliefs are testable, as we've already established quite some time ago.

Casual claims can be dismissed casually. They aren't required to be testable, and that's why there are scores of different god claims and the like. A claim isn't an epiphany, where you come to a realization of what you feel the world is about. It's a statement to others of what the world is about. Statements will be scrutinized if they are extraordinary, and if they aren't testable, they will be dismissed by all but the nutjobs.


A random critique. You agree (to a point that you're confusing yourself) that "being/was the prime mover" is a necessary characteristic of god. Since no account of Aprhodite gives her that quality, you have to assume she isn't/wasn't the PM, and therefore not god by your (and my) definition. You can't both assert that Aprhodite is a goddess while also asserting that she cannot be god (at least not without making a distinction between the extensions of "god" and "goddess"). So you should just drop this line of reasoning. It's illogical.

Only if you joust the universal contingency windmill does the word "prime mover" even hold meaning, and I don't even own a horse.


Not true at all in this thread. I'm not talking about my own theistic beliefs. I'm talking about the word. "God" can mean different things to different people, which is why people need to clarify the extensions they hold. I simply said that one cannot say they hold no extensions for the word while also assigning the word meaning. It makes no sense.

Face it, you have a nebulous concept of a god and the only way you can attempt to differentiate yourself from the mystics is by using a word like "prime mover" and call it a characteristic. It's wishy washy. You know that. Your education won't let you, in good faith, believe in an invisible god force but your upbringing won't leave you alone either.


Still have no idea where you get this from. You just extended god by calling him "infinite". Of course, as I said a while back, infinity is merely a concept with no possible extension (referent) in what we know as existence. Due to your self-imposed constraints, you simply cannot use that term meaningfully.
I offered you two options. Either you are a human or you are a post-bot. Did I just call you a post bot?

If your god exists, then it existed prior to first cause, and thus is infinite and infinite cannot become less than infinite and cannot be extended.

[Chinook]

In philosophy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy), essence is the attribute or set of attributes that make an entity or substance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substance_theory) what it fundamentally is, and which it has by necessity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysical_necessity), and without which it loses its identity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_identity).

Noted. Seems like that's more of a noumena/phenomena thing rather than an intension/extension thing, though.


I do.

That's the only part of your response that was necessary.


Casual claims can be dismissed casually. They aren't required to be testable, and that's why there are scores of different god claims and the like. A claim isn't an epiphany, where you come to a realization of what you feel the world is about. It's a statement to others of what the world is about. Statements will be scrutinized if they are extraordinary, and if they aren't testable, they will be dismissed by all but the nutjobs.

Not really.


Only if you joust the universal contingency windmill does the word "prime mover" even hold meaning, and I don't even own a horse.

You just said you know what it means. You can't talk out of both sides of your mouth on this. It doesn't matter that you don't believe in it. If "prime mover" had no meaning to you, you wouldn't even be able to reject the idea.


Face it, you have a nebulous concept of a god and the only way you can attempt to differentiate yourself from the mystics is by using a word like "prime mover" and call it a characteristic. It's wishy washy. You know that. Your education won't let you, in good faith, believe in an invisible god force but your upbringing won't leave you alone either.

That doesn't matter. Again, we're not debating my theism here. Without any extensions, you can't have a concept of god at all. Not a hazy one. Not one that doesn't stand up to testing. None.


I offered you two options. Either you are a human or you are a post-bot. Did I just call you a post bot?

What?


If your god exists, then it existed prior to first cause, and thus is infinite and infinite cannot become less than infinite and cannot be extended.

You can't use the term infinite. Literally, it has no referent, and it isn't testable in any way. Those of us who know that's not a problem can use it, but it shouldn't make any sense in your head.

Again, you seem obsessed with trying to have a conversation about theism. That's not the point of our discussion. We're talking semantics (the philosophical kind, not the grammar kind) here. I know you're all gung ho about empricism and all that, but what we're talking about has nothing to do with that.

[DMC]

I can use words how I see fit. I am arguing from the foundation you laid, remember? I don't even believe a god exists, so then I suppose I cannot debate the god claim at all. Your cardboard responses are duly noted as is your half-assed acknowledgement that you are wrong about things you've stood behind for how many posts now? If an attribute defines an essence, then how does 'prime mover" define the essence of god?

[Chinook]

I don't even believe a god exists, so then I suppose I cannot debate the god claim at all.

This statement is seriously why you can't seem to get on track in this conversation. You're confusing referent and extension. You don't have believe something can exist in order to think (and argue) about it, but you do have to have at least one connected idea to a concept for it to have meaning. That is the reason why we can argue about infinity while also knowing that we'll never be able to observe or measure it in the world.

I imagine you're trolling by now, because you're not an idiot an understand words when people use them. You know that I am not talking about the existence of god in this thread, yet you keep trying to bring it back there.

[DMC]

This statement is seriously why you can't seem to get on track in this conversation. You're confusing referent and extension. You don't have believe something can exist in order to think (and argue) about it, but you do have to have at least one connected idea to a concept for it to have meaning. That is the reason why we can argue about infinity while also knowing that we'll never be able to observe or measure it in the world.

I imagine you're trolling by now, because you're not an idiot an understand words when people use them. You know that I am not talking about the existence of god in this thread, yet you keep trying to bring it back there.

Sorry, been trolling the entire time.

This should have given it away "If "prime mover" is an extension, it's one extension and it's one attribute. If there are an infinite limit of prime movers, there is no way for there to be a single prime mover. The infinity of prime movement cannot be divided into individual prime movers, ergo your god cannot exist if there is an infinity of prime movement. During the prime movement, there had to have been an infinity of prime movement as there was nothing but prime movement and there was no beginning since time was not in existence, and there was no end since there was no beginning. Concepts with no beginning or end either do not exist or they are infinite.This means that your monotheistic approach is flawed. Your god either does not exist or your god is infinite, which means you cannot extend it."

That has absolutely zero meaning.

[Chinook]

Sorry, been trolling the entire time.

Relatively nice to hear that. You seemed off the entire thread.


This should have given it away "If "prime mover" is an extension, it's one extension and it's one attribute. If there are an infinite limit of prime movers, there is no way for there to be a single prime mover. The infinity of prime movement cannot be divided into individual prime movers, ergo your god cannot exist if there is an infinity of prime movement. During the prime movement, there had to have been an infinity of prime movement as there was nothing but prime movement and there was no beginning since time was not in existence, and there was no end since there was no beginning. Concepts with no beginning or end either do not exist or they are infinite.This means that your monotheistic approach is flawed. Your god either does not exist or your god is infinite, which means you cannot extend it."

You should understand as well as anyone that type of argument is what passes for a lot of ST posters. The early parts of this thread were full of posts just as meaningless.

[spurraider21]

Sorry, been trolling the entire time.

This should have given it away "If "prime mover" is an extension, it's one extension and it's one attribute. If there are an infinite limit of prime movers, there is no way for there to be a single prime mover. The infinity of prime movement cannot be divided into individual prime movers, ergo your god cannot exist if there is an infinity of prime movement. During the prime movement, there had to have been an infinity of prime movement as there was nothing but prime movement and there was no beginning since time was not in existence, and there was no end since there was no beginning. Concepts with no beginning or end either do not exist or they are infinite.This means that your monotheistic approach is flawed. Your god either does not exist or your god is infinite, which means you cannot extend it."

That has absolutely zero meaning.
yeah my head started hurting after that one and i stopped paying attention :lol

i usually enjoy it when you and Chinook have discussions

[Chinook]

yeah my head started hurting after that one and i stopped paying attention :lol

i usually enjoy it when you and Chinook have discussions

Yeah. I think that's at the point when I was actively questioning DMC's sanity in my replies. But it wasn't any worse than the things Mouse and SBM were saying.

[DMC]

yeah my head started hurting after that one and i stopped paying attention :lol

i usually enjoy it when you and Chinook have discussions

I used to do the moderated formal debate thing but I grew tired of the logical fallacy traps and how my opponent would seem to never mind losing as long as he/she could proselytize in the process. It would start out formal enough, but by the 3rd or 4th rebuttal it was just me pointing out that the opponent had abandoned their original claim and is now relying on a faith based argument. It always came down to "you just have to believe it before you can know it's true".

I've never debated non-religious stuff though.

[spurraider21]

I used to do the moderated formal debate thing but I grew tired of the logical fallacy traps and how my opponent would seem to never mind losing as long as he/she could proselytize in the process. It would start out formal enough, but by the 3rd or 4th rebuttal it was just me pointing out that the opponent had abandoned their original claim and is now relying on a faith based argument. It always came down to "you just have to believe it before you can know it's true".

I've never debated non-religious stuff though.
religion debate gets boring after a while. if you've been on the internet long enough, you've argued it from every possible angle, and you've heard every response. at this point they're basically scripted and choreographed. its a different story when mental midgets like the ones on this site just have fundamental misunderstandings about science, which makes it impossible to even get to that point.

i would talk politics here more often, but that forum is just a spamfest

sports debate is fun too, like the curry one we had throughout most of last year

[DMC]

religion debate gets boring after a while. if you've been on the internet long enough, you've argued it from every possible angle, and you've heard every response. at this point they're basically scripted and choreographed. its a different story when mental midgets like the ones on this site just have fundamental misunderstandings about science, which makes it impossible to even get to that point.

i would talk politics here more often, but that forum is just a spamfest

sports debate is fun too, like the curry one we had throughout most of last year

Curry is a chucker, btw.

[spurraider21]

:lol

[Chinook]

religion debate gets boring after a while. if you've been on the internet long enough, you've argued it from every possible angle, and you've heard every response. at this point they're basically scripted and choreographed. its a different story when mental midgets like the ones on this site just have fundamental misunderstandings about science, which makes it impossible to even get to that point.

i would talk politics here more often, but that forum is just a spamfest

sports debate is fun too, like the curry one we had throughout most of last year

Or there can be debates like the strange one last night with that one dude about global warming.

[spurraider21]

Or there can be debates like the strange one last night with that one dude about global warming.
:cry i'm going to destroy your credibility
:cry you're going to be exposed in front of everybody
:cry i'm going to crush you
:cry you'll regretting challenging me

[Chinook]

:cry i'm going to destroy your credibility
:cry you're going to be exposed in front of everybody
:cry i'm going to crush you
:cry you'll regretting challenging me

:lol I sincerely hope that dude was trolling. But the way he backed out at the end makes me think he wasn't.

I was also hoping he was just some snot-nosed teenager, but I looked at his profile and saw he's been on ST since 2005.

[spurraider21]

i know there are certainly exceptions, but here in liberal country, there is a running joke about the education level of southerners :lol