Reply With Quote
Did you plagiarize this?
You did, didn't you.
I'm asking your reason for being a deist if you don't subscribe to the watchmaker analogy.
I don't see how it's possible to claim deism and not.
"first cause" always leads to infinite regress. There's no rational way to argue around it.What do you mean, back to first cause? I never left that idea. That's the opposite of infinite regress, though.
And infinite regress is the gaping flaw in your belief, in my opinion.
And how did prime mover arrive?It's irrational to believe that not being able to prove something does not exists is somehow proof that it does exist (Spaghetti). It's not irrational to supposed trends continue to the point that we'll need something at the head of the chain and that a prime mover is the likeliest thing to be there.
Infinite regress.
Did you plagiarize this?
You did, didn't you.
You just hate it when someone makes you look like the moronic idiot that you are.
So, you resort to common sidetrack tactics, or throw out an insult.
Doesn't work though.
EDIT: Do you have something against using someone else' statement (in quotations by the way) in support of something I explained in many different ways earlier in this same thread? Apparently you do, thus another one of your false accusations. I, like anyone else here, do not have to cite every single word used in every sentence, troll.To save time that is why we use quotation marks.
Last edited by xmas1997; 08-14-2014 at 11:23 AM.
I wouldn't print your conclusion that a god created the universe, in a scientific journal. However that wasn't my point. If I believed like the most likely result of your child's endeavors in school was to fail, would you want me teaching your child? It doesn't mean I couldn't teach your child. If you didn't know that I held that belief, without even knowing your child, then you'd not have any reason to deny me that opportunity. Compare that to a scientist who believes that he cannot ever know the answer, yet continues to go through the motions of looking for it.
Again, then we are not "most able" to.We can't do it. But we pretend to do it to a high degree. Think Searle's Chinese Room for an example of how such a thing is possible.
So they are atheist?Newborn infants don't believe god exists. They don't believe anything.
It's not a theory.I'm saying I have a belief that god exists. I have such a belief because it's the theory that makes the most sense to me. Like all beliefs, it is subject to change if I am provided with new information.
I've asked you to define what belief means to you. I said semantics is fine, but you seem to ignore the point being made in favor of a semantics lesson.If you don't want to talk semantics, fine. But then don't constantly try to define what belief means.
That's not necessarily true. It's only true for your belief.It's gonna require magic no matter how you slice it. That's been one of the central points of my argument.
The difference is I don't need to believe Hawking in order to consider his statement, and I don't call myself a Hawking-ist. I can look at it as one of many ideas put forth, no more and no less. However Hawking doesn't arbitrarily cross over from the metaphysical to the physical just to solve the problem. He could have just as easily as you did. Why do you think he didn't?Case in point. Hawking provides a complete non-answer, but because it doesn't involve god, you give it the power of an answer.
The universe is all that exists. If something exists, it's part of our universe. If you can travel faster than light, and you reach the "edge" of the universe and you keep going, you are expanding the universe. The universe is what we define it to be, no more and no less. We've defined it to be all that exists.No. We know the universe actually has borders, really physical (constantly expanding) ones with numbers attached. If there is existence outside those borders, then there's just existence outside those borders. The only reason why you think it's a paradox is because you keep mixing up definitions of universe. You either have to stick with the quantifiable universe we can study or the theoretical universe that necessarily has to contain all of existence. Otherwise you see paradoxes that aren't there.
Actually no. "How did he do it?" is not the question. The question would assume a god exists, which negates any "how" questions. That's why you put a god there as a wall to infinite regress. The question should be "why do you break your own rules to solve the problem your own rules create when not having those rules to begin with would be parsimonious?"That's what you're hung up on. There's no 'god science.' Functionally speaking, "God did it," is a non-answer for proximate mechanisms. It's like, "Yeah, so? How did he do it?" And everyone is back to trying to figure out mechanisms. Again, this is a horrible extension on your part that you have not backed up.
The answer is that the universe was the singularity. The singularity did not need a cause, necessarily.It doesn't. There's just no reason to assume that the universe is different. The human race is just a collective of humans in Russell's example. He's not referring to the lineage of humans (or at least I hope he's not, because that would destroy his argument before he could get it out of his mouth). Looking for the cause of the universe is looking for the head of the tree. It's not trying to gather all the separate events and saying, "How"?
See aboveNo. But it was the progenitor. That is what Russell was looking for (or rather asserting didn't exist).
For the sake of expediency, I will let this point go but I think you get my drift.Not at all.
That's a really fancy way of saying they cut through the mythical nonsense to reveal the truths, most often against the will of the god believers.Empiricists did no such thing. They simply gave people an alternative explanation that had the bonus of being predictive. Essentially, science took away the extensions historic people gave to gods. Doing so took away some incentive for people to worship the gods. Had they assigned extensions to god that empiricism can't take away, the people would have gone right now believing in the them.
You should stay out of it because this was answered pages ago, but you refused to accept the answer.
Pay attention.
He's trying to copy me. I carried on an entire debate/discussion with him using nothing but copy/paste paragraphs from random sites. It went on for a few pages. He's not recovered. I don't typically do that but I know his intent and decided to have fun with him while he's out looking for a bite.
More false accusations from you too?
Why do you resort to lying to try to make a point?
It doesn't fly, sorry.
But it is laughable.
EDIT: Some of us don't have to lie to make our points and debunk your assertions, but then you wouldn't know about that. Epistemology is not one of your more knowledgeable subjects apparently since you misunderstand how faith is used by all us everyday, without even realizing it by taking our beliefs for granted instead of realizing what they truly are, mere "assumptions" of the truth.
Last edited by xmas1997; 08-14-2014 at 12:09 PM.
From the same page, but "one" of a "number" of differentiations. I explained many times in this thread already the logic behind the one I deem most pertinent IMHO.
have you ever donkey punched a camel?
88 pages and we are in the same place...
No one knows but scientists "think they know"
leaving us back at...
no one knows...
Lol edit to add quotes.You just hate it when someone makes you look like the moronic idiot that you are.
So, you resort to common sidetrack tactics, or throw out an insult.
Doesn't work though.
EDIT: Do you have something against using someone else' statement (in quotations by the way) in support of something I explained in many different ways earlier in this same thread? Apparently you do, thus another one of your false accusations. I, like anyone else here, do not have to cite every single word used in every sentence, troll.
You played it like it was your own thought. You plagiarized.
Yeah, I caught you doing it for s and giggles.
I didn't really read his posts that close, so I didn't catch him doing it for realz.
Lol Dartmouth.
Still trying to find tex tch rump raiders on this list - though Dartmouth is @ #10
http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandre...versities/data
More sidetracking and false accusations as is your trollish schtick.
Do you really believe your lies, or does sociopathic behavior run in your family?
Whatever, it makes for lots and lots of laughter as you continue to humiliate yourself.
And now you have DMC humiliating himself as well, I didn't know it was contagious over the internet.
Wow, you don't say.
I keep trying to get you to weigh in with your views on the subject being debated because you have some pertinent truths to impart here that go way beyond God, and science.
But even though it would fly way over some heads on here, and impervious to ridicule, they are important points.
I wish you would share them, and just ignore the moronic troll's efforts to discredit them.
Still lost?
You are telling lies about others in a vain attempt to gain some sort of credibility in the hopes of destroying mine, but it is backfiring on you, as it should.
You get what you put out.
You should go back to your little cave and sulk in private.
It is unseemly on here and makes us laugh AT you!
mouse the starting point used is the atmospheric carbon-14 levels, which is essentially the only c-14 source of plants and animals excluding some s fish or mollusks that inherit some from ancient limestones which is why creationists laugh at some mussels being dated to be thousands of years old
carbon dating isn't particularly accurate for anything older than 20,000 years or so. We know that for roughly 20,000 years that fluctuations in c-14 havers rely exceeded ten percent in that time period but we are unsure of the levels prior to that
Well, sperm-raider pussied out of challenging - where I corrected his bible verse-translation -
and no one else can challenge it either because it was irrefutable - and they are bible bashers - but when given the chance - they did not try to defend sperm-raiders claim about what his choice of verses meant -
but the "sleeping scientists" want to argue semantics on an unknowable mystery 24/7
pretty boring - because they are like the blind men arguing over something they have yet to see
True, "no one knows", but we can "hypothesize", or some of us can, and think outside the box.
Some of the rest just want to confuse, lie, and sidetrack the issue (see blake, fuzzy, and half the time DMC), because they have no other recourse or tactic to use, which goes to show that this topic is way out of their league. This is apparent in the way DMC and blake keep getting confused by chinook's and my explanations, and can only resort to emotional responses.
I do like that you endeavor to keep an open mind on all of this and for the most part refrain from a judgmental stance.
Undoubtedly your science background (major) helps you in this regard.
Did you say you also studied philosophy in depth?
no, not much at all, outside of some political philosophy. its why i haven't tried to get in between DMC and Chinook as they go at it. i feel i'm learning with each of their posts
what did i ever pussy out of
what did i ever pussy out of
you posted a bible verse and ridiculed and posted your mocking interpretation of what bible believers believe that it means -
I refuted it by posting what else it could mean -
you never replied.
so your bible interpretation was bull .
i didn't reply, therefore i was wrong? interesting logic. i'll look forward to debating dead people.
i interpreted it. you interpreted another way. thats all it was. once we realize the book is completely up to interpretation, you'll see why its pretty silly to take it literally
From reading their debate, I have already realized that DMC is really quite confused by what chinook is trying to explain to him. He is debating in circles and getting caught up in semantics.
At first he made some good points, but digressed from there.
When he started using emotion to explain himself, I grew bored and basically humored him.
In essence I do believe DMC knows what he is talking about, but he completely missed my point on faith, as did you at first.
But you finally "got" (I think) what I was saying, that I was not referring to "religious faith" per say, which IMHO has nothing to do with logic and reason, but rather faith in the more general and commonly used or epistemological sense.
Plus you do not resort to emotional responses to lend some sort of mythical credibility to your points.
Emotion IMHO is an illogical method to go about such things and for most reasonable people it lends no rational credibility whatsoever.
As for blake, what can I say, he is insignificant, always was, and always will be IMHO.
IMHO, you and SBM got off on the wrong foot for some reason, because all three of us do not interpret the bible, or any other religious book, literally. Hope I straightened that out.
Speaking of emotional responses, as an aside to the discussion/debate: here's hoping the Raiders move here despite all the opposition and objections.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
