Reply With Quote
ok the burden of proof is also now on you to show that zeus does not exist.
Or a flying spaghetti monster......
Indeed. That seems to have been a mistake on my part.
No. I refuted that argument when you first said it, and you've just been regurgitating it. Atheism and theism are opposites. They cannot both exist in the same individual. It's not a continuum like you keep trying to argue it is. If you had looked up the words in a dictionary, you'd know that. The rest of what you said was a silly ad homenim. "Box boy" is a silly insult. Your only justification for labeling me that is based on your own lack of understanding for what atheism is.You clearly do not understand how words are derived, what I am talking about categorization is going completely over your head and it's funny watching you try and tell me about the meanings of words, box boy. I get what you are trying to call things but you are not the arbiter of semantics for anyone but yourself. You would do yourself a favor in understanding that people do not look at things as you do particularly when it comes to things that do not have an analog in the real world.
On this note, you've given no argument against me being binary (which I'm not, but who cares right now). You've simply said that Nietzsche disagreed with that view. All you did was appeal to his authority to do your argumentative work for you. That is a fallacy called "appeal to authority," which you should look up, since that's what's been plaguing you the most.Looking at how physical systems actually work, when I see a binary rationale behind something it is almost invariably a human talking out of their ass or people operating within human created ins utions. With you its the former.
Ignoring you not realizing that Pascal is not an argument for my side, I'll say you have yet to actually refute my constructive, especially in a way that wasn't you just appealing to authority. You should be able to explain to me in your own words why "prima causa" is invalid. I didn't argue for "natural law" in the way you may think I did. Even so, I haven't seen you argue against it for yourself. If you truly understand why those arguments are wrong, you should be able to explain as much without relying on other people "credibility". Random Guy can do that just fine, as can DMC.So do you have anything other than prima causa, natural law and pascal's threats?
ok the burden of proof is also now on you to show that zeus does not exist.
Or a flying spaghetti monster......
I'll take this one since I'm here. Atheists don't have to and usually don't try to claim that (any) god does not exist. They simply have to say that they see no evidence to believe a claim that he does. If they do take a hard stance that god does not exist, then they actually do leave themselves open to criticism. However, it's not even a burden of proof thing. You can never make a definitive claim of a negative. Any claim that does so is completely unprovable and should be disregarded immediately.
Ohhhhh that's hilarious.
Reminds me of when i was playing that game apples to apples with some family and my cousin asked "who is Brian Surgeon"
So an atheist is the same as an agnostic?
Eh, if you ask me, I don't really think agnosticism is tenable. But atheists feel that claims about god's existence ican be rejected. Agnostics aren't as critical.
Because you cannot prove something doesn't exist except conceptually (squared circles and such). To prove something doesn't exist you first need to have that something clearly defined. When the Christian god is clearly defined it becomes evident that it's a paradox. Omniscient, knows all, yet still provides (provides) free will. Knows the future, but you still have a choice. Those two are incompatible and using "uh uh because god can do anything" isn't a get out of jail free card.
So if someone says no gods exist, they can define their own version of what it is that doesn't exist, but if you define it, they can show you how it's incompatible traits are, well, incompatible.
two blind fools still bashing each other over something they have never seen...
Sounds like you and Avante arguing about your feet.two blind fools still bashing each other over something they have never seen...
Or this girl I saw at while I was getting my boat registered, talking on a phone to her friend "yeah I'm at the boat tilting place... don't know where that is"Ohhhhh that's hilarious.
Reminds me of when i was playing that game apples to apples with some family and my cousin asked "who is Brian Surgeon"
Russell had more formalized proofs than that. He used the teapot argument for the layman. That is really besides the point because you have not put forth a single formal argument at any point.
As for the categorical imperative, you wikied the definition and posted it. The wrote entry about moral obligation. My response which you ignored was that you are describing the conclusion as used by Kant found from google where as I was talking about the process by which the conclusion was drawn. I have been trying to talk about categories that don't have basis in the objective world as meaningless for inferring characteristics to anything else. It comes to the very crux of the a priori debate; you cannot even acknowledge it yet I am clueless?
I have cited Nietzshes arguments here but let Fred speak for himself; its like he is speaking through time to you:
What is the an hesis of a theist? What he says about things need to "have truth within themselves" and not of what we make of them goes directly to what I have been talking about objective semantics. All you do is make up words without meaning: your boxes, boxboy."HOW COULD anything originate out of its opposite? For example, truth out of error? or the Will to Truth out of the will to deception? or the generous deed out of selfishness? or the pure sun-bright vision of the wise man out of covetousness? Such genesis is impossible; whoever dreams of it is a fool, nay, worse than a fool; things of the highest value must have a different origin, an origin of THEIR own—in this transitory, seductive, illusory, paltry world, in this turmoil of delusion and cupidity, they cannot have their source. But rather in the lap of Being, in the intransitory, in the concealed God, in the 'Thing-in-itself—THERE must be their source, and nowhere else!"—This mode of reasoning discloses the typical prejudice by which metaphysicians of all times can be recognized, this mode of valuation is at the back of all their logical procedure; through this "belief" of theirs, they exert themselves for their "knowledge," for something that is in the end solemnly christened "the Truth." The fundamental belief of metaphysicians is THE BELIEF IN AN HESES OF VALUES. It never occurred even to the wariest of them to doubt here on the very threshold (where doubt, however, was most necessary); though they had made a solemn vow, "DE OMNIBUS DUBITANDUM." For it may be doubted, firstly, whether an heses exist at all; and secondly, whether the popular valuations and an heses of value upon which metaphysicians have set their seal, are not perhaps merely superficial estimates, merely provisional perspectives, besides being probably made from some corner, perhaps from below—"frog perspectives," as it were, to borrow an expression current among painters. . In spite of all the value which may belong to the true, the positive, and the unselfish, it might be possible that a higher and more fundamental value for life generally should be assigned to pretence, to the will to delusion, to selfishness, and cupidity. It might even be possible that WHAT cons utes the value of those good and respected things, consists precisely in their being insidiously related, knotted, and crocheted to these evil and apparently opposed things—perhaps even in being essentially identical with them. Perhaps! But who wishes to concern himself with such dangerous "Perhapses"! For that investigation one must await the advent of a new order of philosophers, such as will have other tastes and inclinations, the reverse of those hitherto prevalent—philosophers of the dangerous "Perhaps" in every sense of the term. And to speak in all seriousness, I see such new philosophers beginning to appear.
You don't even argue this you just say that I don't know what I am talking about or that I cannot read or other flailing. You are a coward.
If you don't want to reveal your religion that is fine but as long as you continue to cite your two proofs on god and the the threat made by christian philosophers then it is pretty obvious what is what.
As for infinity you can continue to handwave at notation like a ty teacher all you like but I spoke of much more than that. Again I am not interested in getting caught up in your bull . I get your arguments and they are at best described as superficial. You need a box or you get confused though; i get it. Read the stuff about convergence, infinite series, geometric ratios, and infintesimals and try again. Then perhaps you can try and tell me what I don't know about again.
What I will say in the mean time is that there are physical manifestations of the infinite in geometric ratios, physics, Euler's work and all other manner of thing. There is very good reason to believe that some things are infinite. You just ignore that and talk about notation from precalculus. There are many forms of infinite that have nothing to do with what you are talking about as I said before.
As for the pascal threat I get that you don't stand by any argument you make; that is besides the point of my message.
Why create something when you already know the result? It is the same as a person creating a robot. We already know what it is going to do, so why create it in the first place? If we were to create a robot with free will, it would be among one of mans greatest creations. Isn't that the same as the explanation given by the Bible since we are his favored creation?
This is covered in the scriptures. If you ever pick up a Bible you might know that.
Man can't see the future, so no, not the same.
So how does that jive with omniscience?
Man can see the future. Not very accurately, but I am sure there are times even you predicted something.
I tend to believe that God uses omniscience inherently. He can choose what he wants to know and when he wants to know it.
How can you choose what you want to know without first knowing what you are not choosing?
If the future is known, then everything is known. If the future isn't known, then prophets are bull and revelation is non-existent since you cannot reveal to someone something you don't know.
You're using special pleading, by the way.
Guessing isn't the same as seeing.
It is simple. Choose to know the destiny of mankind, or not to choose the destiny of mankind. That is the choice.
The future is known to God should he choose it. You may know if your child were to run across the street that he/she could be hit by a car. You don't know for certain whether or not the child will choose to do so, but you warn them anyways to mitigate the risk.
I know that if I call my wife a , she will get pissed. Is that not seeing the future should I call her a ?
Bible says God is omniscient. Bible also talks about predestiny. Bible clearly shows God chooses to know mankind's destiny.
Or is he showing one of many destinies?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
