Better lie

  • 273 Replies
  • 33373 Views
*

Pezevenk

  • 15363
  • Militant aporfyrodrakonist
Re: Better lie
« Reply #30 on: December 04, 2016, 10:33:01 AM »

i listen to christian metalcore

humans will do the worst with ANYTHING (literally), so i don't understand how religion would be put aside.

Christian metalcore? WTF is that?

Look, don't take my post seriously, I respect your belief and I know this doesn't say much about religion as a whole, I just wanted to sort of troll a couple obnoxious guys here.
Member of the BOTD for Anti Fascism and Racism

It is not a scientific fact, it is a scientific fuck!
-Intikam

Read a bit psicology and stick your imo to where it comes from
-Intikam (again)

*

JackBlack

  • 21558
Re: Better lie
« Reply #31 on: December 04, 2016, 12:57:16 PM »
Don't get me started on trinity. That's a seriously messed up thing that's even confused those who try to explain it. Fundamentally all 3 still believe in one entity and the oneness as stated earlier.
But funadmentally, the Chrstians believe in a tri-une entity. One which is 1, but 3 at the same time.
It is seriously messed up as it makes no sense at all.

The problem is that you still don't understand the concept of God. Please read carefully: The belief is not "something can exist without cause." - According to Atheists you believe God to be a "something created" - Theists believe God to be the creator. He already existed, Alpha Omega etc etc etc. So you cannot falsify a statement by attributing the meaning to Theists by using Atheist's belief in the matter.
No, the problem for you is that I understand the argument, the beliefs and the implications of it.

You believe a being exists without cause.
This means you believe it is possible to exist without cause, even if you only believe that applies to your god.

That means you believe the first line of the argument is false.

I am using your beliefs to show you do not believe in the first line of the argument.

If you would like it simpler:
1 - Is God part of everything? - If no, then god does not exist.
2 - Does everything have a cause? - If no, then you have rejected the first line of the argument.
3 - If you answer yes to the above that means God must have a cause.

There are only 2 ways out:
1 - Claim God is not part of everything. - But this then means that god doesn't exist.
2 - Admit that not everything has a cause. - But this means rejecting the argument.

The only way to keep it as an argument for a god that exists is if you also believe your god has a cause.

So as you can see, I don't care if you believe God has a cause or not. That doesn't change the argument at all.
Either your god refutes the argument as it exists without cause, or your god merely pushes the problem back.

So how about you stop with the dishonesty and condescending attitude and actually start addressing my objections rather than continually treating me like a moron that doesn't understand anything?

Yes I did. However as the argument is invalid to begin with (I'm not saying it's an incorrect or wrong argument), it cannot be answered until the argument is applied to the correct disputed matter.
But that was the entire point of those questions, to show the argument was invalid/unsound.

If you had read what I was saying, that would have been clear to you.
So why do you choose to treat me like a moron rather than accept that the argument was wrong?

And no, if you say the argument is invalid, then you are saying it is incorrect or wrong. Unless you just meant applied wrong rather than logically invalid.
For logic, invalid means the conclusions do not follow from the premises.

Once again, not "things" - you miss the concept of God according to Theists.
So your god is nothing?
Is that what you are trying to say?
Because that is effectively the same as not-existing.
The only way for your god to exist is to be part of something.

So no, I am not missing the concept. I am rejecting your bullshit attempts to make god special without cause.

There's nothing to solve when it comes to the matter of God. What's there to solve?
Why does God exist rather than nothing?
If you wish to simply assert that it just does, then the same can be done for the universe.
If you wish to appeal to an attribute of God, then how does that make it exist without it already existing and why does God have that attribute?
It has the same problems as the universe, but made even worse due to it begin a sentient entity.

That's exactly my point. No one is giving proof so what proof is flawed? As far as I have typed no proof has been put forward. So what proof are you talking about?
So you are just ignoring what has been going on in the thread?

Here, let me remind you, this discussion started with this quote:
THEIST: Everything has a cause. The universe too must have had a cause. That cause is God.

ATHEIST: Well what caused God then?

THEIST: God is uncaused. The existence of the universe requires a cause. God does not.

ATHEIST: But if you’re going to make an exception to the rule that everything has a cause, why not make the universe the exception? Why do you posit the existence of a further entity–God–for which we have no proof? Why can’t the universe itself be uncaused?

THEIST: Er … because?

Sounds a bit like FE reasoning!

I'm sure atheists are not dumb enough to say the above. Your logic actually ends on number 2

Quote
THEIST: Everything has a cause. The universe too must have had a cause. That cause is God.

ATHEIST: Well what caused God then?

THEIST: If something caused God then that wouldn't be God.

So it is that argument that we were meant to be discussing the entire time.

And this was based upon cikljamas claim that the universe needs a cause which is God.


Theist's defense mechanism in action... use the word "magic" I won't bother with this
Yes. Theists will continually use dishonest special pleading to try and escape the rational conclusions of their arguments.

Amazing. You're almost as dense as Flat Earthers.. Let me explain:

You say "And before you go saying I am ignoring what it means to be God" and then you follow it up by proving you still ignore what it means to be God according to Theists.
No. I don't.
I go on to show that they cannot use that to escape the conclusion that their god existing without cause still disproves the argument.

You say, "which is impossible" - just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it's impossible.
So are you sure it is impossible for God to be created, and you are just not understanding that it is possible?

Again, I was using your own argument against you.
You are trying to use special pleading to pretend your god doesn't need a cause.
The same form of special pleading can be used to pretend the universe doesn't.

So all I was doing was showing you an example of your dishonesty/special pleading.

Do you notice how you were ever so happy to attack it, while you continue your own? And you keep repeatedly lying about me to do so.

Why should I accept your bullshit, dishonest special pleading while you reject others?

Remember, you can't attack that position with theistic beliefs as that would mean that people can attack your position with atheistic beliefs.
You want the theistic beliefs to be treated as special and just accepted by everyone regardless of who is making what argument.
But I'm not stupid enough to do that.

*

1on0ne

  • 156
Re: Better lie
« Reply #32 on: December 05, 2016, 02:40:42 AM »
please can we come back to satanic luciferian sun-worshipers free-masons that sacrifice babies in their lodges please??? ;D
live fearlessly, love endlessly

*

wise

  • Professor
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 25431
  • The Only Yang Scholar in The Ying Universe
Re: Better lie
« Reply #33 on: December 05, 2016, 03:27:27 AM »
Familiar expressions. False imitation, weak opposite control working, perception study.

Is that the best of your trolling machine?
1+2+3+...+∞= 1

?

Twerp

  • Gutter Sniper
  • Flat Earth Almost Believer
  • 6540
Re: Better lie
« Reply #34 on: December 05, 2016, 03:39:59 AM »
Familiar expressions. False imitation, weak opposite control working, perception study.

Is that the best of your trolling machine?

You are ignored for reason of disrespecting by interrupt. You will to spend one week in pen of largest billy goat. After you will learn lesson of how not interrupting.
“Heaven is being governed by Devil nowadays..” - Wise

Re: Better lie
« Reply #35 on: December 05, 2016, 09:59:38 PM »
You believe a being exists without cause.
This means you believe it is possible to exist without cause, even if you only believe that applies to your god.

1. Yes
2. Yes (only God)

That means you believe the first line of the argument is false.

No.

Again:
Only God (the creator) exists without cause. Everything "after" God has a cause. There is no concept according to Theists for "before God"

Therefore:
As two separate statements, the first would be invalidated. As a single statement there's no contradiction.

I am using your beliefs to show you do not believe in the first line of the argument.

If you would like it simpler:
1 - Is God part of everything? - If no, then god does not exist.
2 - Does everything have a cause? - If no, then you have rejected the first line of the argument.
3 - If you answer yes to the above that means God must have a cause.
1. No. God is not part of creation. This is the biggest deal with Atheists who simply cannot comprehend the concept of Creator and Creation.
2. Yes. Every creation has a cause. God is not part of His creation.
3. I answered No and Yes respectively meaning your question flow came to an incorrect conclusion.

There are only 2 ways out:
1 - Claim God is not part of everything. - But this then means that god doesn't exist.
2 - Admit that not everything has a cause. - But this means rejecting the argument.
This is why I say you simply do not understand the concept of "God"
1. "everything" = creation and creator cannot be part of its creation. A "thing" cannot create itself even according to you.

The only way to keep it as an argument for a god that exists is if you also believe your god has a cause.
Repeating an invalid statement constantly will not "magically" make it valid.

So how about you stop with the dishonesty and condescending attitude and actually start addressing my objections rather than continually treating me like a moron that doesn't understand anything?
Are you kidding me? ALL I've done it addressed your statement trying to correct the misconception and invalid approach in the initial argument. If you do not allow something to be corrected or aligned properly on a disputed matter then how is it possible to find the root cause of the disagreement and in turn a "solution" in the form of a point to agree to disagree? Not once have I called you stupid or indicated anything of the sort. Saying you don't understand something is pointing to a problem which you seem to be in strong denial over in which case is there a point continuing?

But that was the entire point of those questions, to show the argument was invalid/unsound.

If you had read what I was saying, that would have been clear to you.
So why do you choose to treat me like a moron rather than accept that the argument was wrong?

And no, if you say the argument is invalid, then you are saying it is incorrect or wrong. Unless you just meant applied wrong rather than logically invalid.
For logic, invalid means the conclusions do not follow from the premises.
Incorrect = wrong
Invalid = lacks validity in context
e.g. "The sun is near Earth". It's valid if in context with distant stars or if compare to the sun's distance from Pluto. But invalid if seen from Flat Earth theories.

So your god is nothing?
Is that what you are trying to say?
Because that is effectively the same as not-existing.
The only way for your god to exist is to be part of something.
You see God as a physical object/being. That's the underlying issue and why it's not possible for you to grasp what I'm saying. You don't necessarily have to be a moron to not understand. It's your method of thinking and the way you've been programmed to not believe and no amount of explanations can change that until you differentiate the concept yourself.

So no, I am not missing the concept. I am rejecting your bullshit attempts to make god special without cause.
And this confirms my previous sentence.

1. Why does God exist rather than nothing?
2. If you wish to simply assert that it just does, then the same can be done for the universe.
3. If you wish to appeal to an attribute of God, then how does that make it exist without it already existing and why does God have that attribute?
4. It has the same problems as the universe, but made even worse due to it begin a sentient entity.
I numbered the above quote for reference:
1. Belief/Faith - science cannot prove or disprove what existed before nothing as technically that's a loop if something existed before nothing then it wasn't nothing and so on...
2. So Theists believe the universe has always existed?
3. Belief/Faith - our answer to origins. Don't forget that Atheists have theories which has never been replicated or recreated in a lab or otherwise making it a "theory" similar to belief. Except we blatantly call it a belief yet you call it a fact/law?
4. Not made worse at all. It's actually almost an identical problem on both sides.

So are you sure it is impossible for God to be created, and you are just not understanding that it is possible?

Again, I was using your own argument against you.
You tried. But clearly failed using false logic which was answered every single step of the way. I cannot help your denial sorry.

You are trying to use special pleading to pretend your god doesn't need a cause.
The same form of special pleading can be used to pretend the universe doesn't.
No special pleading. I called it a "Belief" continuously. Why do you attribute such pretenses when not once anything of the sort was claimed?

So all I was doing was showing you an example of your dishonesty/special pleading.

Do you notice how you were ever so happy to attack it, while you continue your own? And you keep repeatedly lying about me to do so.
Dishonesty? If you say so. You're entitled to your personal conclusion of my replies and attempts to answer
Attack? Giving an answer to an attack which you quoted earlier is not an attack. It's more like you know... "defense"

Why should I accept your bullshit, dishonest special pleading while you reject others?
So who is dishonest now calling a defense an "attack", a belief "special pleading", changing meanings and concepts, failing to understand a concept and belief and attributing false pretenses to affirm your own misunderstanding????

Remember, you can't attack that position with theistic beliefs as that would mean that people can attack your position with atheistic beliefs.
You want the theistic beliefs to be treated as special and just accepted by everyone regardless of who is making what argument.
But I'm not stupid enough to do that.
^Well at least you understand a theist's viewpoint without realising it
« Last Edit: December 06, 2016, 02:04:43 AM by observer »

?

sir_awesome123

  • 277
  • proud NASA shill
Re: Better lie
« Reply #36 on: December 06, 2016, 12:34:09 AM »
You believe a being exists without cause.
This means you believe it is possible to exist without cause, even if you only believe that applies to your god.

1. Yes
2. Yes (only God)

That means you believe the first line of the argument is false.

No.

Again:
Only God (the creator) exists without cause. Everything "after" God has a cause. There is no concept according to Theists for "before God"

Therefore:
As two separate statements, the first would be invalidated. As a single statement there's no contradiction.

I am using your beliefs to show you do not believe in the first line of the argument.

If you would like it simpler:
1 - Is God part of everything? - If no, then god does not exist.
2 - Does everything have a cause? - If no, then you have rejected the first line of the argument.
3 - If you answer yes to the above that means God must have a cause.
1. No. God is not part of creation. This is the biggest deal with Atheists who simply cannot comprehend the concept of Creator and Creation.
2. Yes. Every creation has a cause. God is not part of His creation.
3. I answered No and Yes respectively meaning your question flow came to an incorrect conclusion.

There are only 2 ways out:
1 - Claim God is not part of everything. - But this then means that god doesn't exist.
2 - Admit that not everything has a cause. - But this means rejecting the argument.
This is why I say you simply do not understand the concept of "God"
1. "everything" = creation and creator cannot be part of its creation. A "thing" cannot create itself even according to you.

The only way to keep it as an argument for a god that exists is if you also believe your god has a cause.
Repeating an invalid statement constantly will not "magically" make it valid.

So how about you stop with the dishonesty and condescending attitude and actually start addressing my objections rather than continually treating me like a moron that doesn't understand anything?
Are you kidding me? ALL I've done it addressed your statement trying to correct the misconception and invalid approach in the initial argument. If you do not allow something to be corrected or aligned properly on a disputed matter then how is it possible to find the root cause of the disagreement and in turn a "solution" in the form of a point to agree to disagree? Not once have I called you stupid or indicated anything of the sort. Saying you don't understand something is pointing to a problem which you seem to be in strong denial over in which case is there a point continuing?

But that was the entire point of those questions, to show the argument was invalid/unsound.

If you had read what I was saying, that would have been clear to you.
So why do you choose to treat me like a moron rather than accept that the argument was wrong?

And no, if you say the argument is invalid, then you are saying it is incorrect or wrong. Unless you just meant applied wrong rather than logically invalid.
For logic, invalid means the conclusions do not follow from the premises.
Incorrect = wrong
Invalid = lacks validity in context
e.g. "The sun is near Earth". It's valid if in context with distant stars or if compare to the sun's distance from Pluto. But invalid if seen from Flat Earth theories.

So your god is nothing?
Is that what you are trying to say?
Because that is effectively the same as not-existing.
The only way for your god to exist is to be part of something.
You see God as a physical object/being. That's the underlying issue and why it's not possible for you to grasp what I'm saying. You don't necessarily have to be a moron to not understand. It's your method of thinking and the way you've been programmed to not believe and no amount of explanations can change that until you differentiate the concept yourself.

So no, I am not missing the concept. I am rejecting your bullshit attempts to make god special without cause.[/quote
And this confirms my previous sentence.

1. Why does God exist rather than nothing?
2. If you wish to simply assert that it just does, then the same can be done for the universe.
3. If you wish to appeal to an attribute of God, then how does that make it exist without it already existing and why does God have that attribute?
4. It has the same problems as the universe, but made even worse due to it begin a sentient entity.
I numbered the above quote for reference:
1. Belief/Faith - science cannot prove or disprove what existed before nothing as technically that's a loop if something existed before nothing then it wasn't nothing and so on...
2. So Theists believe the universe has always existed?
3. Belief/Faith - our answer to origins. Don't forget that Atheists have theories which has never been replicated or recreated in a lab or otherwise making it a "theory" similar to belief. Except we blatantly call it a belief yet you call it a fact/law?
4. Not made worse at all. It's actually almost an identical problem on both sides.

So are you sure it is impossible for God to be created, and you are just not understanding that it is possible?

Again, I was using your own argument against you.
You tried. But clearly failed using false logic which was answered every single step of the way. I cannot help your denial sorry.

You are trying to use special pleading to pretend your god doesn't need a cause.
The same form of special pleading can be used to pretend the universe doesn't.
No special pleading. I called it a "Belief" continuously. Why do you attribute such pretenses when not once anything of the sort was claimed?

So all I was doing was showing you an example of your dishonesty/special pleading.

Do you notice how you were ever so happy to attack it, while you continue your own? And you keep repeatedly lying about me to do so.
Dishonesty? If you say so. You're entitled to your personal conclusion of my replies and attempts to answer
Attack? Giving an answer to an attack which you quoted earlier is not an attack. It's more like you know... "defense"

Why should I accept your bullshit, dishonest special pleading while you reject others?
So who is dishonest now calling a defense an "attack", a belief "special pleading", changing meanings and concepts, failing to understand a concept and belief and attributing false pretenses to affirm your own misunderstanding????

Remember, you can't attack that position with theistic beliefs as that would mean that people can attack your position with atheistic beliefs.
You want the theistic beliefs to be treated as special and just accepted by everyone regardless of who is making what argument.
But I'm not stupid enough to do that.
^Well at least you understand a theist's viewpoint without realising it

dude, i'm a christian, and i love debating people on the internet; but you won't see me debating the existence of God on the internet because there isn't any evidence for God and debating that which can't be proven isn't gonna go anywhere. just accept that he doesn't believe what you believe.
"hey what are you doing?"
"nothing, just arguing with this dude, he thinks the earth is flat"
"no really, what are you doing?"

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Better lie
« Reply #37 on: December 06, 2016, 12:37:14 AM »
I am using your beliefs to show you do not believe in the first line of the argument.

If you would like it simpler:
1 - Is God part of everything? - If no, then god does not exist.
2 - Does everything have a cause? - If no, then you have rejected the first line of the argument.
3 - If you answer yes to the above that means God must have a cause.
1. No. God is not part of creation. This is the biggest deal with Atheists who simply cannot comprehend the concept of Creator and Creation.
2. Yes. Every creation has a cause. God is not part of His creation.
3. I answered No and Yes respectively meaning your question flow came to an incorrect conclusion.
^Well at least you understand a theist's viewpoint without realising it
[/quote]

This might be a helpful way you look at the question, or it might not. I don't know.

Our universe is regarded as having 4 dimensions. 3 of space and one one of time and we call it "space-time".
Now we, and all of the universe (everything as we know it) are constrained to exists withing the limitations of "space and time".

The God of the Bible is not so constrained and can be in all places (any part of space?) and all times (eternity?) (no trouble finding support implying that) so one way of looking at "where God is" is in another dimension.
I would not try to push this too far, but it is one way to think of His ability to see all of space and all of time.

So possibly the questions can be reworded as (you work out the answers):
1 - Is God part of "space-time"? - If no, . . . . ,
2 - Does everything in "space-time" have a cause? - If no, . . . . ,
3 - If you answer yes to the above that means God is the probable cause.

Just a thought.

*

JackBlack

  • 21558
Re: Better lie
« Reply #38 on: December 06, 2016, 02:28:44 AM »
That means you believe the first line of the argument is false.

No.
The first line of the argument was that everything has a cause, not everything except God.
As such, you believe the first line of the argument is false.

Only God (the creator) exists without cause. Everything "after" God has a cause. There is no concept according to Theists for "before God"
Again, this is special pleading.
You have accepted that things can exist without cause.
This means you need to justify why things need a cause, you can't simply say everything else does.

According to some, there is no concept of before the universe, as time began to exist at the big bang.
So how was there a "before" the big bang in which a god could exist to create the universe?

Do you notice how your arguments for a god being special also work for the universe?
This is why it is dishonest special pleading.
Your argument merely pushes the problem back and then you pretend it doesn't apply to your god.

If you are going to baselessly assert that the universe needs a cause, I see no reason why I shouldn't assert your god does as well.
If you are going to assert your god doesn't need a cause, I see no reason why I shouldn't assert the universe doesn't.

The simple reality any excuse that works for a god has a corresponding excuse that works for the universe.
Any reason the universe needs a cause has a corresponding reason that works for your god.

1. No. God is not part of creation.
I didn't ask if he was a part of creation. I asked if he was part of everything.

This is the biggest deal with Atheists who simply cannot comprehend the concept of Creator and Creation.
No. This is the biggest deal with theists. Rather than trying to honestly and rationally answer questions (which would destroy their argument) they resort to some bullshit to distract from it, typically by making their god special.
It was a simple question, is god part of everything? Not every creation or any crap like that, merely is god part of everything, i.e. the set of entities which exist?
Yes or no?

2. Yes. Every creation has a cause. God is not part of His creation.
Prove the universe is a creation.
And again, this doesn't answer the question.
Does EVERYTHING have a cause. If not, you refute the first line of the argument and thus need to justify why the universe needs a cause but your god doesn't.

3. I answered No and Yes respectively meaning your question flow came to an incorrect conclusion.
No. You avoided my questions.
You did not tell me if EVERYTHING has a cause (which if you negate you refute the first line of the argument presented, and would otherwise need to justify why your god doesn't have a cause but the universe does).
And you did not tell me if your god is part of everything.
You didn't answer either question.

This is why I say you simply do not understand the concept of "God"
Yes. This is why you say it. Because if you admit that I do understand it you are left with no argument.
So instead of even trying to honestly and rationally refute my argument, you need to attack and insult me to try and pretend I am just too stupid and thus shouldn't be listened to.

1. "everything" = creation and creator cannot be part of its creation. A "thing" cannot create itself even according to you.
Again, I am not asking if it is a creation, merely a part of everything, i.e. does it exist? Is it an entity which is part of the set of entities which exist?

Repeating an invalid statement constantly will not "magically" make it valid.
I know. So why do you keep on doing it?
Likewise, continually rejecting a valid statement wont make it valid.

Are you kidding me? ALL I've done it addressed your statement trying to correct the misconception and invalid approach in the initial argument.
There you go again.
You treat me like a moron, insulting me and ignoring my objections.
You are yet to actually address my objections.

Your way to correct the UNSOUND approach in the initial argument (I am assuming you honestly think it is unsound as you think your god (which is part of everything) can exist without cause, and have stated that not everything that exists needs a cause, which means the premise is false, but yes, it is also invalid as it just baselessly asserts god is the cause), with an equally unsound, yet far more dishonest argument where you assert that everything except your god needs a cause.
That is not addressing my objections at all.

An honest and rational way of addressing my objections would be to admit the argument was wrong and that not everything needs a cause and then try to make a different argument where you claim everything except god needs a cause and justify why that is the case.

If you do not allow something to be corrected or aligned properly on a disputed matter
But that is the issue. You have no interest at all in correction. Instead you just want to "properly align" me to your incorrect, dishonest special pleading and accepting pure bullshit as a sound argument.
The other thing you are trying to do is "correct" something that is already correct. That isn't correction. That is being condescending and treating me like a moron.

I have clearly indicated I understand, but you insist on acting like I am a moron that doesn't understand at all.

then how is it possible to find the root cause of the disagreement and in turn a "solution" in the form of a point to agree to disagree?
By acting honestly and rationally and actually addressing what I am saying rather than repeatedly treating me like a moron.
For example, instead of saying atheists are morons that don't understand what it means to be God, say the argument is stupid and doesn't understand what it means to be God, that the first line of the argument is fundamentally flawed and that not everything needs a cause.

Then you would be able to proceed to the next step, where you make your dishonest special pleading, and you can try to justify that.

So how about we try that?
Do you agree with the first statement in the argument as presented? "That everything that exists needs a cause?"
Yes or no?

Not once have I called you stupid or indicated anything of the sort.
BULLSHIT!!
You repeatedly accused me of being unable to understand a concept which is quite simple, even though I made it quite clear I did.
That is acting like I am stupid.

Saying you don't understand something is pointing to a problem which you seem to be in strong denial over in which case is there a point continuing?
If you don't want to be honest and accept that I already know that and actually address the issues I have raised, there is very little point in continuing.
Where have I ever denied the point you are trying to "correct"?
Was it where I explictly stated that I understand it and that it doesn't magically get the theist off the hook


Incorrect = wrong
Invalid = lacks validity in context
e.g. "The sun is near Earth". It's valid if in context with distant stars or if compare to the sun's distance from Pluto. But invalid if seen from Flat Earth theories.
incorrect = wrong.
invalid (logical) = conclusion doesn't follow from premises, and thus wrong.
invalid (colloquial) = does not meet required standards/does not apply.
unsound = either invalid, or based upon false premises.
ambiguous/confusing = lacks critical contextual information to determine if it is true or false.

You see God as a physical object/being.
No. I don't. I see your god as a fictional being. An entity that allegedly exists outside of what we think of as this universe (i.e. the heavens and Earth).
Where do you think I have indicated anything else?
Where do you think I have indicated that I see God as a physical entity?

That's the underlying issue and why it's not possible for you to grasp what I'm saying.
No. The underlying issue is that I understand completely and am capable of seeing through your bullshit.
So rather than address my objections, which would show your position to be flawed, you need to resort to repeatedly insulting me and acting like I am a moron to avoid responding to by objections.

You don't necessarily have to be a moron to not understand. It's your method of thinking and the way you've been programmed to not believe and no amount of explanations can change that until you differentiate the concept yourself.
Intelligence relates to your ability to learn knew things.
If an explanation is good, you should be able to understand it. If you cannot understand it, then you are stupid or the explanation is horrible.
For a simple concept like that, almost any explanation would do.
Thus if someone is unable to understand such a simple concept, they would be a moron.
Saying someone can't understand is insulting their intelligence.

I haven't been programmed to not believe. I was raised a Christian until I realised it was bullshit.

And this confirms my previous sentence.
No. It doesn't.
It means I am not accepting you making your god special. This doesn't mean I am rejecting the idea of god existing without cause.
All it means is I am not just going to baselessly accept that everything except your god needs a cause.
Instead, if you assert your god doesn't need a cause, I see no reason to think the universe needs one and thus see no need for your god.


1. Why does God exist rather than nothing?
2. If you wish to simply assert that it just does, then the same can be done for the universe.
3. If you wish to appeal to an attribute of God, then how does that make it exist without it already existing and why does God have that attribute?
4. It has the same problems as the universe, but made even worse due to it begin a sentient entity.
I numbered the above quote for reference:
1. Belief/Faith - science cannot prove or disprove what existed before nothing as technically that's a loop if something existed before nothing then it wasn't nothing and so on...
This doesn't answer my question at all.
Saying there was nothing before or before doesn't apply doesn't even come close to saying why a god exists.
Saying you believe god exists doesn't explain it either.
I am not asking you about what existed before nothing, but why your god exists.

I am not asking why you believe in a god, but why god exists rather than nothing.
And no, you can't appeal to your definition of god being uncaused either as that would then become if god exists, god exists or if god exists, god necessarily exists, still not explaining why it exists rather than nothing.

2. So Theists believe the universe has always existed?
I assume you mean atheists?
If so, it varies.
Some believe it has always existed in some form or another, either as what we know of as this universe, or some higher multiverse.
Others are fine with it existing without cause from nothing, akin to how a virtual particle pops into existence.

3. Belief/Faith - our answer to origins. Don't forget that Atheists have theories which has never been replicated or recreated in a lab or otherwise making it a "theory" similar to belief. Except we blatantly call it a belief yet you call it a fact/law?
Again, your belief is not an explanation.
You have not even tried to address the issue.
Science has nothing to do with atheism.
It is just that a rational, scientific person would naturally tend to atheism.

Very few things in science are called facts. The things which are akin to beliefs are hypotheses.
Laws are simply mathematical relations. Calling it a law has nothing to do with it being true or not.
The things which are actually theories (but this is complicated by things like string theory being called theory even though it is just a hypothesis) have plenty of evidence backing them up.
On the other hand, all you have is faith.

4. Not made worse at all. It's actually almost an identical problem on both sides.
Yes. Almost identical. But still worse for you.
In an atheistic worldview, starting with the big bang/singularity, we have a simple singularity. A collection of matter and energy, and a few simple laws.

For the theistic worldview, they have a far more complex entity. Rather than a collection of matter and energy, it is a sentient being.

You tried. But clearly failed using false logic which was answered every single step of the way. I cannot help your denial sorry.
No. I didn't fail at all, nor did I use false logic.

You dismissed an argument which was made in the exact same form as yours.
You used a definition to appeal to something being impossible and thus dismissing the idea of it being possible to assert your god couldn't be created and thus doesn't need a creator.
I did the exact same thing, just using the universe instead of a god, but rather than accept that, you just say I could simply be ignorant and what I think is impossible could actually be possible.

Why then does the same not apply to your god?
Why then, could it not be you simply think it is impossible for your god to have a creator while it actually does have one?

No special pleading. I called it a "Belief" continuously. Why do you attribute such pretenses when not once anything of the sort was claimed?
If it is used in an argument it is special pleading as you are treating one thing special.
In fact, by it being a belief, it is worse.
If it was a fact that you could justify and explain rather than a belief, it wouldn't be special pleading.

If you were just stating your beliefs rather than trying to make or defend an argument, then it wouldn't be special pleading either.

You are saying the argument is fine because your god is special and doesn't need a cause while everything else does.
That is special pleading until you justify why everything except your god needs a cause.
You can't use a general case of something needing a cause, unless you can show that applies to everything except your god.
You can't just use your god not needing a cause as that doesn't show everything else does.

Until you do so, making your god special to compared to things like the universe is special pleading.
For example, you asserting that the argument is fine when fixed to make god special, or you saying god doesn't push the problem back because god is special.
Yes, you didn't use those words, but the meaning is the same.

Dishonesty? If you say so. You're entitled to your personal conclusion of my replies and attempts to answer
Attack? Giving an answer to an attack which you quoted earlier is not an attack. It's more like you know... "defense"
Yes, I am entitled to my conclusions, especially when you do it so well here.
I made an argument for why the universe doesn't need a cause. That is an answer to an attack. That is an argument, an argument which you were happy to attack.
Rather than simply accept that it is impossible for the universe to have a cause like you want me to do for your god, you instead attacked the argument and suggested we just don't know enough and that it could be possible.

So who is dishonest now calling a defense an "attack", a belief "special pleading", changing meanings and concepts, failing to understand a concept and belief and attributing false pretenses to affirm your own misunderstanding????
The one calling an attack a defence, the one pretending special pleading is just a belief and perfectly fine to use in an argument, the one continually avoiding the argument, the one repeatedly accusing someone of not understanding when they made it clear, and so on.
I'll give you a clue, it isn't me.

Well at least you understand a theist's viewpoint without realising it
No. I do understand it. And I do realise that. I made that quite clear from the start.
You just need to pretend I don't so you can continue insulting me rather than addressing the points I made.

This will be the last long post if you still fail to address the points. After this, if you still refuse to debate honestly I will do it point by point.
« Last Edit: December 06, 2016, 02:32:25 AM by JackBlack »

*

JackBlack

  • 21558
Re: Better lie
« Reply #39 on: December 06, 2016, 02:31:16 AM »

So possibly the questions can be reworded as (you work out the answers):
1 - Is God part of "space-time"? - If no, . . . . ,
2 - Does everything in "space-time" have a cause? - If no, . . . . ,
3 - If you answer yes to the above that means God is the probable cause.

Just a thought.

Which again would be avoiding the argument.
This is to specifically address the argument that "Everything which exists has a cause"

A bigger issue (from the theist perspective) is that the universe is not part of space-time nor is it in space-time.

As such, this leaves open the possibility that the universe itself was the first cause.

*

JackBlack

  • 21558
Re: Better lie
« Reply #40 on: December 06, 2016, 02:35:15 AM »
Here is an example of your dishonesty and not actually addressing the issue:

THEIST: Everything has a cause. The universe too must have had a cause. That cause is God.

ATHEIST: Well what caused God then?

THEIST: God is uncaused. The existence of the universe requires a cause. God does not.

ATHEIST: But if you’re going to make an exception to the rule that everything has a cause, why not make the universe the exception? Why do you posit the existence of a further entity–God–for which we have no proof? Why can’t the universe itself be uncaused?

THEIST: Er … because?

Sounds a bit like FE reasoning!

I'm sure atheists are not dumb enough to say the above. Your logic actually ends on number 2

Quote
THEIST: Everything has a cause. The universe too must have had a cause. That cause is God.

ATHEIST: Well what caused God then?

THEIST: If something caused God then that wouldn't be God.

Notice how rather than "attack" the hypothetical theist that simply claims everything has a cause (which would include God), you instead attack the hypothetical atheist which asks what caused God.
You even go so far as suggesting that would be a dumb thing to do.

(yet claim to not be calling or implying people are stupid, while I clearly indicate that isn't a dumb thing to do).

If you wanted to be honest (with my understanding of what you have said), you would instead go off at the theist, and say the logic ends before line 1 as not everything has a cause as god doesn't.

Also, do you notice how (excluding leaving out the special pleading at the start) you are doing exactly what this theist is doing?

Then I go to the next step of the atheist, pointing out that is dishonest special pleading that doesn't actually solve anything and that this god merely pushes the problem back.

You assert that everything that exists (other than god) has a cause, and that the cause of the universe is god (at least with that implication).

When questioned, you just assert that everything except god needs a cause, and attack people accusing them of being ignorant.

And instead of "er because" you go "its a belief" as if that somehow makes it better.
It doesn't. It means you know it is unsubstantiated and thus should have no part in a rational argument.
« Last Edit: December 06, 2016, 02:38:17 AM by JackBlack »

*

Pezevenk

  • 15363
  • Militant aporfyrodrakonist
Re: Better lie
« Reply #41 on: December 06, 2016, 06:12:22 AM »

Only God (the creator) exists without cause. Everything "after" God has a cause. There is no concept according to Theists for "before God"


And, so far, according to science, there's no concept "before the universe". I hope you can see why this whole argument is meaningless and going nowhere. Everyone is asking questions that humans are completely incapable of answering definitely now and possibly for ever.
Member of the BOTD for Anti Fascism and Racism

It is not a scientific fact, it is a scientific fuck!
-Intikam

Read a bit psicology and stick your imo to where it comes from
-Intikam (again)

Re: Better lie
« Reply #42 on: December 06, 2016, 09:56:33 AM »
I will address only 3 things here as the rest is in an extremely endless repeat mode.

1.
Quote
Again, this is special pleading.
You have accepted that things can exist without cause.
This means you need to justify why things need a cause, you can't simply say everything else does.
a. That's not the meaning of special pleading.. Please look it up.
b. I don't need to justify a belief as much as you don't need to justify a made up big bang theory never proven with science. That's my point. You keep asking for proof of a "belief" system.. what part of that are you incapable of not understanding and I can maybe explain more?
c. According to my belief, I can absolutely say "everything else does" without the need to prove my belief since it does not contradict any scientific evidence.

The lack of proof does not automatically make a belief redundant.

2.
Quote
It was a simple question, is god part of everything? Not every creation or any crap like that, merely is god part of everything, i.e. the set of entities which exist?
Yes or no?
Further points:
a. The question isn't complete. A yes or no answer can only be given to complete questions
b. What is everything? You explain "the set of entities which exist" - what is "the set of entities" referring to?

3.
Quote
BULLSHIT!!
You repeatedly accused me of being unable to understand a concept which is quite simple, even though I made it quite clear I did.
That is acting like I am stupid.
When you fail to understand something I have written again and again (up to and including your last post) and making arguments in which you ignore aspects that are not aligned to your point of view (which by the way is the real meaning of special pleading) and I bring it up to highlight that is not calling you stupid. Calling you "stupid" would be calling you stupid. Don't assume anything someone doesn't clearly say and you'll live more happily.

My question now:
To us, before creation, there was only God who created everything. What was the beginning of everything in existence according to you?

*

JackBlack

  • 21558
Re: Better lie
« Reply #43 on: December 06, 2016, 12:46:16 PM »
I will address only 3 things here as the rest is in an extremely endless repeat mode.
Yes, I need to keep repeating it because you are yet to honestly answer it.

a. That's not the meaning of special pleading.. Please look it up.
Yes. That is exactly what special pleading is.
One simple definition:
Quote
argument in which the speaker deliberately ignores aspects that are unfavourable to their point of view.
In this argument you are ignoring the aspect that what you say for your god applies to the universe as well.

But a better definition would be:
Quote
Special pleading is a form of fallacious argument that involves an attempt to cite something as an exception to a generally accepted rule, principle, etc. without justifying the exception.
or
Quote
Applying standards, principles, and/or rules to other people or circumstances, while making oneself or certain circumstances exempt from the same critical criteria, without providing adequate justification.  Special pleading is often a result of strong emotional beliefs that interfere with reason.

That is exactly what you are doing.
You are applying different standards to your god and everything else.
You are asserting a rule (which I don't accept) and then making your god exempt from that rule without justifying the exemption (including justifying the rule).

So yes, that is special pleading.

Perhaps you should look things up before you go accusing others of being ignorant?

b. I don't need to justify a belief as much as you don't need to justify a made up big bang theory never proven with science. That's my point. You keep asking for proof of a "belief" system.. what part of that are you incapable of not understanding and I can maybe explain more?
If you state it as a fact, as part of an argument for the existence of a god, you do need to back it up, or at the very least I can expect you to and dismiss your argument as dishonest, irrational bullshit if you don't.

Just like if I was going to argue for the big bang, I would back it up (and yes, it has been proven with science, you ignoring the proof doesn't magically mean it hasn't).

I am not asking for proof of a belief. I am asking for proof of the claim you are using in a rational argument.

If you just want it to be a belief, that is fine, just don't make it part of a rational argument.
Have your belief in god and leave it at that.
Don't go asserting the atheist is dumb for questioning an argument based upon baseless beliefs.

c. According to my belief, I can absolutely say "everything else does" without the need to prove my belief since it does not contradict any scientific evidence.
And if you just want it as a belief, that is fine.
If you use it as part of an argument, you can't.
Then is just a baseless claim which we are fine to just completely dismiss as pure bullshit.
If you want to use it as part of an argument, you need to justify it.

The lack of proof does not automatically make a belief redundant.
Where did I ever indicate that?

It doesn't make it redundant. It makes it an unsubstantiated claim which has no place in an argument for the existence of an entity with those who do not share your beliefs.

2.
Quote
It was a simple question, is god part of everything? Not every creation or any crap like that, merely is god part of everything, i.e. the set of entities which exist?
Yes or no?
a. The question isn't complete. A yes or no answer can only be given to complete questions
So again you avoid it.
The question is complete.

b. What is everything? You explain "the set of entities which exist" - what is "the set of entities" referring to?
Really? You can't even tell what everything is?

A set is a collection or group.
An entity is a distinct thing, i.e. something which can be distinguished from something else. Your god is an entity. A "thing" doesn't require it to be a physical object or even existing in the universe.
So the set of all entities is referring to all that can be distinguished from something else, including parts of those things.

So it is nice and simple.
Is your god an entity that exists? If yes, it is part of everything.
If no, it doesn't exist as your god is an entity.

When you fail to understand something I have written again and again (up to and including your last post)
And there you go lying yet again.
I understood it before you went and tried to explain it.

and making arguments in which you ignore aspects that are not aligned to your point of view
No. I'm not ignoring anything. I am first focusing on the original argument which asserted everything (which would include any exiting god) requires a cause, to show the argument is fallacious.
I am also demanding you back up that aspect you are baseless believing.

There is a very big difference between ignoring something and demanding something be backed up.

On the other hand, you completely ignore the possibility that you are wrong and that something other than god may exist without cause and that a god may need a cause. You even reject the idea of the universe not needing a cause, even though the argument is of the same form as your god not needing a cause.
You reject/ignore all that because it doesn't fit with the basis of your argument.

(which by the way is the real meaning of special pleading)
Thus even by your own definition, you are committing special pleading as you are ignoring anything that goes against your view of god doesn't need a cause, but everything else does.
and I bring it up to highlight that is not calling you stupid. Calling you "stupid" would be calling you stupid. Don't assume anything someone doesn't clearly say and you'll live more happily.
Again, you do not need to directly call someone stupid to be indicating they are stupid.
You are repeatedly lying and claiming I cannot understand a simple concept. That is the same as calling me stupid.

Also, why don't you follow your own advice and stop lying about me and claiming things I have never clearly said?

My question now:
To us, before creation, there was only God who created everything. What was the beginning of everything in existence according to you?
No. Before I bother with your questions, you deal with mine.

At the very least deal with the first argument as presented.

Do you believe that everything (which would include your god) needs a cause? Yes or no?
If yes, then what is your gods cause?
If no, then why did you attack the atheist in the hypothetical argument, for following the argument, rather than the theist for asserting something you disagreed with?

Once you get that dealt with, you can deal with my next important question, which is why does your god not need a cause, but everything else does?

Re: Better lie
« Reply #44 on: December 07, 2016, 03:54:45 PM »
I will address only 3 things here as the rest is in an extremely endless repeat mode.
Yes, I need to keep repeating it because you are yet to honestly answer it.

a. That's not the meaning of special pleading.. Please look it up.
Yes. That is exactly what special pleading is.
One simple definition:
Quote
argument in which the speaker deliberately ignores aspects that are unfavourable to their point of view.
In this argument you are ignoring the aspect that what you say for your god applies to the universe as well.

But a better definition would be:
Quote
Special pleading is a form of fallacious argument that involves an attempt to cite something as an exception to a generally accepted rule, principle, etc. without justifying the exception.
or
Quote
Applying standards, principles, and/or rules to other people or circumstances, while making oneself or certain circumstances exempt from the same critical criteria, without providing adequate justification.  Special pleading is often a result of strong emotional beliefs that interfere with reason.

That is exactly what you are doing.
You are applying different standards to your god and everything else.
You are asserting a rule (which I don't accept) and then making your god exempt from that rule without justifying the exemption (including justifying the rule).

So yes, that is special pleading.

Perhaps you should look things up before you go accusing others of being ignorant?

b. I don't need to justify a belief as much as you don't need to justify a made up big bang theory never proven with science. That's my point. You keep asking for proof of a "belief" system.. what part of that are you incapable of not understanding and I can maybe explain more?
If you state it as a fact, as part of an argument for the existence of a god, you do need to back it up, or at the very least I can expect you to and dismiss your argument as dishonest, irrational bullshit if you don't.

Just like if I was going to argue for the big bang, I would back it up (and yes, it has been proven with science, you ignoring the proof doesn't magically mean it hasn't).

I am not asking for proof of a belief. I am asking for proof of the claim you are using in a rational argument.

If you just want it to be a belief, that is fine, just don't make it part of a rational argument.
Have your belief in god and leave it at that.
Don't go asserting the atheist is dumb for questioning an argument based upon baseless beliefs.

c. According to my belief, I can absolutely say "everything else does" without the need to prove my belief since it does not contradict any scientific evidence.
And if you just want it as a belief, that is fine.
If you use it as part of an argument, you can't.
Then is just a baseless claim which we are fine to just completely dismiss as pure bullshit.
If you want to use it as part of an argument, you need to justify it.

The lack of proof does not automatically make a belief redundant.
Where did I ever indicate that?

It doesn't make it redundant. It makes it an unsubstantiated claim which has no place in an argument for the existence of an entity with those who do not share your beliefs.

2.
Quote
It was a simple question, is god part of everything? Not every creation or any crap like that, merely is god part of everything, i.e. the set of entities which exist?
Yes or no?
a. The question isn't complete. A yes or no answer can only be given to complete questions
So again you avoid it.
The question is complete.

b. What is everything? You explain "the set of entities which exist" - what is "the set of entities" referring to?
Really? You can't even tell what everything is?

A set is a collection or group.
An entity is a distinct thing, i.e. something which can be distinguished from something else. Your god is an entity. A "thing" doesn't require it to be a physical object or even existing in the universe.
So the set of all entities is referring to all that can be distinguished from something else, including parts of those things.

So it is nice and simple.
Is your god an entity that exists? If yes, it is part of everything.
If no, it doesn't exist as your god is an entity.

When you fail to understand something I have written again and again (up to and including your last post)
And there you go lying yet again.
I understood it before you went and tried to explain it.

and making arguments in which you ignore aspects that are not aligned to your point of view
No. I'm not ignoring anything. I am first focusing on the original argument which asserted everything (which would include any exiting god) requires a cause, to show the argument is fallacious.
I am also demanding you back up that aspect you are baseless believing.

There is a very big difference between ignoring something and demanding something be backed up.

On the other hand, you completely ignore the possibility that you are wrong and that something other than god may exist without cause and that a god may need a cause. You even reject the idea of the universe not needing a cause, even though the argument is of the same form as your god not needing a cause.
You reject/ignore all that because it doesn't fit with the basis of your argument.

(which by the way is the real meaning of special pleading)
Thus even by your own definition, you are committing special pleading as you are ignoring anything that goes against your view of god doesn't need a cause, but everything else does.
and I bring it up to highlight that is not calling you stupid. Calling you "stupid" would be calling you stupid. Don't assume anything someone doesn't clearly say and you'll live more happily.
Again, you do not need to directly call someone stupid to be indicating they are stupid.
You are repeatedly lying and claiming I cannot understand a simple concept. That is the same as calling me stupid.

Also, why don't you follow your own advice and stop lying about me and claiming things I have never clearly said?

My question now:
To us, before creation, there was only God who created everything. What was the beginning of everything in existence according to you?
No. Before I bother with your questions, you deal with mine.

At the very least deal with the first argument as presented.

Do you believe that everything (which would include your god) needs a cause? Yes or no?
If yes, then what is your gods cause?
If no, then why did you attack the atheist in the hypothetical argument, for following the argument, rather than the theist for asserting something you disagreed with?

Once you get that dealt with, you can deal with my next important question, which is why does your god not need a cause, but everything else does?
Wow. I sense complete desperation from you in all honesty. The answer to all of the above can be found in my numerous previous replies in this thread. Phrasing it differently doesn't change the answer. This is called fishing. News reporters usually do this when they can't get an answer they "want" they keep rephrasing the question until they hear what they want.

*

JackBlack

  • 21558
Re: Better lie
« Reply #45 on: December 08, 2016, 12:30:51 AM »
Wow. I sense complete desperation from you in all honesty. The answer to all of the above can be found in my numerous previous replies in this thread. Phrasing it differently doesn't change the answer. This is called fishing. News reporters usually do this when they can't get an answer they "want" they keep rephrasing the question until they hear what they want.
Nope. Not desperation. Just sick of your crap.

The answer to the above cannot be found in your previous replies, at least not in any honest way.

I haven't been phrasing it differently. I have kept the questions the same.

You are the one that feels the need to phrase things differently to avoid answering the questions as asked.

If I need to rely upon your previous dishonest replies, then I take it to mean you accept that you were horribly dishonest when you attacked the atheist in the hypothetical argument when you disagreed with the theist's argument.
I take it to mean that you accept that the argument as presented is wrong, and is not a sound argument for gods existence, as not everything needs a cause.
I take it to mean you accept that asserting God is special and that everything except God needs a cause is dishonest special pleading and thus not part of a sound argument for a god.
I take it to mean you accept that all a god does is push the problem back and that it is just as rational (if not more so) to stop when we get to the big bang/singularity, or the limit of our knowledge and evidence, as a god solves nothing.

If you wish to disagree, kindly answer the questions as asked.
Don't try to rephrase them to suit your purposes. Answer them with a simple yes or no, as that is all that is required.

Here they are again, stated quite similar to how they have been asked before but with some slight clarification:
1 - Is god part of everything (i.e. all that exists)?
2 - Does everything need a cause?

Here is a direct copy and paste of some prior attempts:
Quote
So you accept that the theists argument is bullshit?
You accept that either not everything needs a cause, so their argument is wrong from the start, or God, not needing a cause is not part of everything and thus doesn't exist and thus can't be the cause?
I admit, this one doesn't ask if God is part of everything, it takes that as a rational conclusion of the premise that everything needs a cause.

Quote
1 - Is God part of everything? - If no, then god does not exist.
2 - Does everything have a cause? - If no, then you have rejected the first line of the argument.
Again, not quite the same, this time rather than explaining that everything is all that exists, I implied it by saying if the answer is no, that means god doesn't exist.

Now should we compare that to your "answers"?
For the first few times, you completely avoid it, continually saying I just don't understand the concept of God.

The first time you pretended to answer it was this:
Quote
1. No. God is not part of creation. This is the biggest deal with Atheists who simply cannot comprehend the concept of Creator and Creation.
2. Yes. Every creation has a cause. God is not part of His creation.
Instead of answering if God is part of everything, you answer if he is part of creation, and again insult atheists, acting like they are morons.
Instead of answering if everything has a cause (which is what the argument asserted), you instead answer if every creation has a cause.

If you cut out the dishonest bullshit and actually answered the questions that have been asked of you I wouldn't need to keep on repeating them.
But so far, the closest you have come is dishonest crap that is trying to skirt around the issue.

Re: Better lie
« Reply #46 on: December 08, 2016, 06:38:11 AM »
But so far, the closest you have come is dishonest crap that is trying to skirt around the issue.
This is why I find it futile discussing with you. No matter what answer you get, if it doesn't match your expected response then in your opinion it becomes dishonest crap only the sole basis that you disagree. The contradictions you state are flawed because you're applying hardcore Christian beliefs (which are indeed flawed beyond repair) to my statements when I didn't state anything of the sort. Way to discuss ::)

*

JackBlack

  • 21558
Re: Better lie
« Reply #47 on: December 08, 2016, 12:24:56 PM »
This is why I find it futile discussing with you. No matter what answer you get, if it doesn't match your expected response then in your opinion it becomes dishonest crap only the sole basis that you disagree. The contradictions you state are flawed because you're applying hardcore Christian beliefs (which are indeed flawed beyond repair) to my statements when I didn't state anything of the sort. Way to discuss ::)

You find it futile because I am not accepting your bullshit.

It isn't the expected response I am waiting for. It is a response to the question asked.

It has nothing to do with me disagreeing.
It is entirely to do with you repeatedly avoiding the question.

No. I'm not applying beliefs to your statements.
However, you repeatedly assert pure bullshit about me, continually claiming I am ignorant or the like just because I'm not agreeing with you, even though I made it clear I understand that.

Now, would you like to try and be honest and answer the questions I asked, or admit the theist in the hypothetical argument was wrong, not the atheist?

Re: Better lie
« Reply #48 on: December 09, 2016, 05:13:31 PM »
You find it futile because I am not accepting your bullshit.
Nope. I'm not asking for nor expecting you to accept it. That would make you a theist God forbid. I'm expecting a simple "okay" when your questions are answered as well as corrected. But if you personally judge it to be dishonest then who am I to judge your judgement?

It isn't the expected response I am waiting for. It is a response to the question asked.
It's like doing sign language for a blind person.

It has nothing to do with me disagreeing.
If you say so
It is entirely to do with you repeatedly avoiding the question.
If you say so

No. I'm not applying beliefs to your statements.
Could have fooled me

However, you repeatedly assert pure bullshit about me, continually claiming I am ignorant or the like just because I'm not agreeing with you, even though I made it clear I understand that.
I'm not claiming you're ignorant. I referred to some actions and behaviours as being that of ignorance. Saying, "You are ignorant" is calling you ignorant - If you said to me that what I'm saying is stupidity then it doesn't mean you're calling me stupid.

Now, would you like to try and be honest and answer the questions I asked, or admit the theist in the hypothetical argument was wrong, not the atheist?
You're like a guard at the illegal Guantanamo Bay who tortures innocent people until they confess to what they want to hear. "Now will you be honest, now will you be honest" until you hear what you want to hear and if you don't then automatically in your atheist programmed mind it's dishonest. Like I said... futile. Feel free to re-read my answers and see if you're capable of taking out time to actually understand the answers that were given.

If you want to resume openly without your currently obvious closed judgemental mind then feel free. This can be in the form rewinding to the beginning and asking the root question that threw you off in the first place or by understanding anything I've said and to ask for clarification instead of the childish "Now be honest" "You're dishonest" judgement judgement condemnation damned to abyss

*

JackBlack

  • 21558
Re: Better lie
« Reply #49 on: December 09, 2016, 06:55:10 PM »
You find it futile because I am not accepting your bullshit.
Nope. I'm not asking for nor expecting you to accept it. That would make you a theist God forbid.
No. You are expecting me to just take your belief as a fact without any rational backing for it, and use that fact as a part of a rational argument.
The belief in question here would be that everything except your god needs a cause, but your god doesn't, requiring your god to exist.
Yes, it would make me a theist.

If you aren't expecting me to accept it, why do you keep repeating the same bullshit and acting like I'm a moron while doing so.

I'm expecting a simple "okay" when your questions are answered as well as corrected. But if you personally judge it to be dishonest then who am I to judge your judgement?
I will give you an "okay" when you actually answer my questions. You are yet to do that directly. Instead you just keep on avoiding them. I asked very simple questions and you refused to answer them.
You are yet to correct me.
Instead you repeatedly lie about me, acting like I'm a moron and incapable of understanding a very simple concept, which I clearly indicated I do understand.

However, you repeatedly assert pure bullshit about me, continually claiming I am ignorant or the like just because I'm not agreeing with you, even though I made it clear I understand that.
I'm not claiming you're ignorant. I referred to some actions and behaviours as being that of ignorance. Saying, "You are ignorant" is calling you ignorant - If you said to me that what I'm saying is stupidity then it doesn't mean you're calling me stupid.
You are saying I don't understand, and thus don't know. That is what ignorant means. So yes, you are claiming I am ignorant.
As it is quite a simple idea to grasp, which I was capable of grasping as a child, you are calling me stupid by repeatedly asserting I don't understand it.

Now, would you like to try and be honest and answer the questions I asked, or admit the theist in the hypothetical argument was wrong, not the atheist?
You're like a guard at the illegal Guantanamo Bay who tortures innocent people until they confess to what they want to hear. "Now will you be honest, now will you be honest" until you hear what you want to hear and if you don't then automatically in your atheist programmed mind it's dishonest. Like I said... futile. Feel free to re-read my answers and see if you're capable of taking out time to actually understand the answers that were given.
No. I am nothing like that. Instead I am a rational person that wont get distracted by bullshit.
Again, it has nothing to do with me not liking your answer. It has everything to do with you not answering the question.
I understand the answers given, and I understand you repeatedly avoided the questions rather than actually answering them.
How about you try and address them directly?

Instead, in your theist, brainwashed mind, because I don't just accept your bullshit and continue to ask the questions, you act like I'm a moron that just isn't understanding.

If you want to resume openly without your currently obvious closed judgemental mind then feel free. This can be in the form rewinding to the beginning and asking the root question that threw you off in the first place or by understanding anything I've said and to ask for clarification instead of the childish "Now be honest" "You're dishonest" judgement judgement condemnation damned to abyss
You are the closed minded bigot here, not me.
You are so closed minded you can't even answer simple questions.
You are so closed minded and bigoted against those who don't believe, rather than objecting to the hypothetical theist's position (which you seem to disagree with, but are yet to honestly and openly admit), you attack the atheist that is merely asking a rational question based upon the theist's claim, suggesting it would be a stupid thing to ask.
You are so closed minded and bigoted that when people don't accept your deflections and claims you act like they are idiots and ignorant and try to get them to understand, even if they already understand quite well.
You are so closed minded that you refuse to accept the possibility that you might be wrong and that God might have a cause or creator, or that the universe might exist without cause, even rejecting pretty much the same same argument you made for a god not needing a cause when it was made for the universe, acting like anyone who suggests it is ignorant and just doesn't realise that it is possible for the universe to have a cause.

How about you stop with your judgements, repeatedly declaring that I don't understand?

Why don't you accept that I do understand and actually answer the questions?

So if you want to start again, that's fine. Just get off your high horse, stop acting like I'm a moron and actually answer my questions.

Here it is from the start (and don't worry, I will start again, not copying the same post as I made before).

THEIST: Everything has a cause. The universe too must have had a cause. That cause is God.

ATHEIST: Well what caused God then?

THEIST: God is uncaused. The existence of the universe requires a cause. God does not.

ATHEIST: But if you’re going to make an exception to the rule that everything has a cause, why not make the universe the exception? Why do you posit the existence of a further entity–God–for which we have no proof? Why can’t the universe itself be uncaused?

THEIST: Er … because?

Sounds a bit like FE reasoning!

I'm sure atheists are not dumb enough to say the above. Your logic actually ends on number 2
Why would it require someone dumb to say the above (in the atheist position)?
It is merely asking a rational question based upon the argument presented by the theist.
It is asked to show that a god doesn't solve anything, it merely pushes the problem back and thus this is not a rational argument for the existence of God (or even a god in general).

Is God part of everything? If it isn't, it doesn't exist.
Otherwise, does God need a cause? According to the first line of the argument, everything does need a cause, which would include any god that exists. This would mean that God does need a cause and thus makes it a perfectly rational question to ask.
If God doesn't need a cause, then that means that the first premise for the theist is wrong, and not everything needs a cause.

So, is God part of everything?
Does everything (including God) need a cause?

Quote
THEIST: Everything has a cause. The universe too must have had a cause. That cause is God.

ATHEIST: Well what caused God then?

THEIST: If something caused God then that wouldn't be God.
So you pretty much state the theist's position? That God is uncaused and thus doesn't require a cause.
This means the argument keeps on going.
If God doesn't need a cause, why assert the universe does?
Why not let the universe be uncaused?
« Last Edit: December 09, 2016, 07:02:39 PM by JackBlack »

*

JackBlack

  • 21558
Re: Better lie
« Reply #50 on: December 09, 2016, 07:05:04 PM »
If all of that is too long and you just want to focus on one thing at a time, that is fine by me.

Lets start with the first key question regarding that argument:
Is god part of everything (i.e. the set which contains all that exists, or if you like all that is possible to exist)?

*

disputeone

  • 24826
  • Or should I?
Re: Better lie
« Reply #51 on: December 09, 2016, 07:24:14 PM »
If all of that is too long and you just want to focus on one thing at a time, that is fine by me.

Lets start with the first key question regarding that argument:
Is god part of everything (i.e. the set which contains all that exists, or if you like all that is possible to exist)?

I wouldn't exactly call myself a theist, but I am definitely not an atheist.

I'll play if that's ok.

Yes, god is part of everything, the infinite, all that ever has or ever will exist, everything we experience has an innate connection to the divine essense.
Quote from: Stash
I'm anti-judaism.

Quote from: Space Cowgirl
Whose narrative is it to not believe the government?

Quote from: Wolvaccine
speech should be a privilege. Not a right.

*

JackBlack

  • 21558
Re: Better lie
« Reply #52 on: December 09, 2016, 10:31:38 PM »
If all of that is too long and you just want to focus on one thing at a time, that is fine by me.

Lets start with the first key question regarding that argument:
Is god part of everything (i.e. the set which contains all that exists, or if you like all that is possible to exist)?

I wouldn't exactly call myself a theist, but I am definitely not an atheist.

I'll play if that's ok.

Yes, god is part of everything, the infinite, all that ever has or ever will exist, everything we experience has an innate connection to the divine essense.

This is specifically aimed at observer, no one else.
Unless you want to look back at the comments that started all it (which is quoted in my post just before the one you posted).

Also, atheist/theist is a dichotomy (at least for people).
You either believe in a god or you don't. If you do you are a theist (even if you are a deist or the like), if you don't you are an atheist.
The only potential complications are things like pantheism where you declare the universe God.

*

disputeone

  • 24826
  • Or should I?
Re: Better lie
« Reply #53 on: December 09, 2016, 10:56:47 PM »
If all of that is too long and you just want to focus on one thing at a time, that is fine by me.

Lets start with the first key question regarding that argument:
Is god part of everything (i.e. the set which contains all that exists, or if you like all that is possible to exist)?

I wouldn't exactly call myself a theist, but I am definitely not an atheist.

I'll play if that's ok.

Yes, god is part of everything, the infinite, all that ever has or ever will exist, everything we experience has an innate connection to the divine essense.

This is specifically aimed at observer, no one else.
Unless you want to look back at the comments that started all it (which is quoted in my post just before the one you posted).

Also, atheist/theist is a dichotomy (at least for people).
You either believe in a god or you don't. If you do you are a theist (even if you are a deist or the like), if you don't you are an atheist.
The only potential complications are things like pantheism where you declare the universe God.

Fair enough, I don't like the religious implications "theist" has, believing that everything just coming from nothing, violating everything we know about thermodynamics makes less sense than there being energy before our universe was created which led to the creation of our universe, isn't completely theistic in my opinion.

It is definitely not atheistic that is why I said as much.

Our latest physics models state that everything is really just energy.

Wave particle duality for example states that everything although seemingly fixed and determined is just a probability wave.

Quote
Wave–particle duality is the concept that every elementary particle or quantic entity may be partly described in terms not only of particles, but also of waves. It expresses the inability of the classical concepts "particle" or "wave" to fully describe the behavior of quantum-scale objects.

Quote
“If quantum mechanics hasn’t profoundly shocked you, you haven’t understood it yet. Everything we call real is made of things that cannot be regarded as real.” – Niels Bohr

Sorry got long winded.
Quote from: Stash
I'm anti-judaism.

Quote from: Space Cowgirl
Whose narrative is it to not believe the government?

Quote from: Wolvaccine
speech should be a privilege. Not a right.

*

JackBlack

  • 21558
Re: Better lie
« Reply #54 on: December 10, 2016, 12:57:20 PM »
Fair enough, I don't like the religious implications "theist" has, believing that everything just coming from nothing, violating everything we know about thermodynamics makes less sense than there being energy before our universe was created which led to the creation of our universe, isn't completely theistic in my opinion.

It is definitely not atheistic that is why I said as much.

I disagree, with the exception of using "creation".
There is nothing theistic about believing in matter or energy existing in some form before the formation of what we think of as the universe.
It only becomes theistic when you start implying it is sentient (i.e. is a god).

Personally, I accept that ultimately, there is no reason for this existence. It is either based upon an infinite series of past causes, or something simply exists without cause.

And my understanding of the big bang isn't formation from nothing, it is the decay of a singularity. I have no idea how that singularity came to be.


Also, as you brought up quantum mechanics, do you know about virtual particles?
That is quite literally formation from nothing. And putting things in space (especially close together) suppresses their formation.

It is hypothetically possible that the singularity from which the universe came was a virtual particle that then decayed. It could have been in this space, or in some higher space, and with that it is hypothetically possible that it will annihilate at any time.

The other fun fact is that if our measurements/calculations are correct, and the universe is flat so the very distant galaxies aren't just closer ones which appear further away from seeing the universe twice (or thrice) the universe is a black hole.

*

boydster

  • Assistant to the Regional Manager
  • Planar Moderator
  • 17754
Re: Better lie
« Reply #55 on: December 10, 2016, 01:15:49 PM »
Those virtual particles exist in space, though, to play Devil's Advocate. To imply the same (or similar) phenomenon is the cause for space to come into being takes a little bit of a leap of faith. There's no precedent, in other words, for those virtual particles existing outside space as we know it, nor is there any reason to think more universes have been created during the time between virtual particle formation and destruction. The universe is a unique animal, in that respect.

FWIW, I'm of the opinion that the universe probably has a natural cause, like every other phenomenon mankind spends enough time to understand.

?

Papa Legba

  • Ranters
  • 9566
  • Welcome to the CIA Troll/Shill Society.
Re: Better lie
« Reply #56 on: December 10, 2016, 01:29:31 PM »
What a massive waste of time this forum is...

Just listen to your stupid shit shill selves; what wankers you are!

Nobody gives a fuck what you think; you are no use to anyone; yet here you are 24/7/365 wasting every fuckers time with complete bullshit & the mods just let you do it & do it & do it...

Total FAIL on every level imaginable.

Now bark like dogs you fucking failures!
I got Trolled & Shilled at the CIA Troll/Shill Society and now I feel EPIC!!!

*

JackBlack

  • 21558
Re: Better lie
« Reply #57 on: December 10, 2016, 03:09:45 PM »
Those virtual particles exist in space, though, to play Devil's Advocate. To imply the same (or similar) phenomenon is the cause for space to come into being takes a little bit of a leap of faith. There's no precedent, in other words, for those virtual particles existing outside space as we know it, nor is there any reason to think more universes have been created during the time between virtual particle formation and destruction. The universe is a unique animal, in that respect.

FWIW, I'm of the opinion that the universe probably has a natural cause, like every other phenomenon mankind spends enough time to understand.

But can we know for sure that the big bang was the formation of space, rather than just a point particle existing in space which decayed (and which had the space inside expand)?

The issue is that in order for space to be meaningful to an everyday person, you need at least 2 objects.
Ignoring the quantum issues, empty space would be akin to no space.
A particle in space with no spatial extent would be akin to just a particle with no space at all.

I'm of the opinion that there is likely something that exists without a cause, and I am fine with that, as anything else is merely pushing the problem back (although in the case of evidence for that something actually existing, it is fine to accept that it exits and is a cause), so either there is an infinite regress and we will never get to the end, or something simply exists without cause.

*

boydster

  • Assistant to the Regional Manager
  • Planar Moderator
  • 17754
Re: Better lie
« Reply #58 on: December 10, 2016, 03:34:42 PM »
But can we know for sure that the big bang was the formation of space, rather than just a point particle existing in space which decayed (and which had the space inside expand)?

I'm not sure we can, but then that's not a proof positive either. We can look at space now, or at virtual particles coming in and out of existence (ok not literally, I know) and draw the conclusion that, based on current observations, virtual particle appearances don't seem to spawn new universes. It's not definitive, but it's also not unreasonable. I don't believe the current rate of expansion of the universe would lead most to believe that it is typical behavior for virtual particles to spawn universes (what I mean is, one wouldn't likely argue that an entirely new universe tends to show up in between particle-antiparticle pairs when they pop into existence).

Quote
The issue is that in order for space to be meaningful to an everyday person, you need at least 2 objects.
Ignoring the quantum issues, empty space would be akin to no space.
A particle in space with no spatial extent would be akin to just a particle with no space at all.

Granted. But we're talking about the beginning of the universe (or as you mentioned, pushing the problem further back, but eventually we get to the beginning), and whether that makes sense to people of Earth some 13.7 billion years later isn't really important, is it? Our senses and understanding have evolved to interpret a very different environment. How that singularity came to exist in what we now observe to be space is a neat fundamental question. I think the multiverse concept has an interesting way of moving the clock back on the true "beginning," and it also takes the creation piece of it literally out of our universe and, likely, far away from the data we would need to answer the question of where the multiverse came from. But it's just an idea for now.

Quote
I'm of the opinion that there is likely something that exists without a cause, and I am fine with that, as anything else is merely pushing the problem back (although in the case of evidence for that something actually existing, it is fine to accept that it exits and is a cause), so either there is an infinite regress and we will never get to the end, or something simply exists without cause.

Cheers! Maybe, as I think Krauss said, nothingness really is inherently unstable, which is an explanation for that first thing to show up without cause - a "cause" of sorts for the thing with no other cause. May humanity never give up on the quest to find out, even if the answer remains elusive  ;D
« Last Edit: December 10, 2016, 03:37:34 PM by boydster »

*

JackBlack

  • 21558
Re: Better lie
« Reply #59 on: December 10, 2016, 05:44:11 PM »
typical behavior for virtual particles to spawn universes (what I mean is, one wouldn't likely argue that an entirely new universe tends to show up in between particle-antiparticle pairs when they pop into existence).
I was thinking more along the lines of the particle is the universe, where it has the space inside it expand from a point to a very large space that remains inside a small volume in our space, and with time being relative an entire universe of time could pass before annihilation.

How that singularity came to exist in what we now observe to be space is a neat fundamental question.
But what we observe to be space is inside the universe, which back then would have been inside the singularity.