Forum Index            

Cookies Consent Information
SelectSmart.com®
Before you decide
Over 20,000 selectors

Join to post comments.
Share
Try These Selectors:
Best college values

Good jobs in gig economy

Right religion for you

Presidential candidates

Best US city for you

Know your philosophy

Landmark decisions
Is your name welcomed below? Then you can post here. Otherwise, click "Log In" to post!
Welcome! » Log In » Create A New Profile

The day the sun danced in the sky.

Posted by Dick 
Re: The day the sun danced in the sky.
March 02, 2015 11:35AM
I don't think we should ignore the fact that every purpose has someone capable of committing intentional acts behind it. No purpose arises spontaneously. Every purpose is an intentional act.

So actually what we're talking about here is the alleged existence of a purpose-giver and not the unknown ( and even you admit the purpose is unknown ) purpose itself. Another way of saying this is: no purpose-giver, no purpose.

So what should we call this alleged purpose-giver if not God, the traditional name used for "creator of all that is"?

OTOH, perhaps you disagree with this and believe purpose can somehow arise spontaneously and doesn't need a purpose-giver? If so, can you explain the reason you think this?
Re: The day the sun danced in the sky.
March 02, 2015 12:46PM
Quote
Dick
I don't think we should ignore the fact that every purpose has someone capable of committing intentional acts behind it. No purpose arises spontaneously. Every purpose is an intentional act.

So actually what we're talking about here is the alleged existence of a purpose-giver and not the unknown ( and even you admit the purpose is unknown ) purpose itself. Another way of saying this is: no purpose-giver, no purpose.

So what should we call this alleged purpose-giver if not God, the traditional name used for "creator of all that is"?

OTOH, perhaps you disagree with this and believe purpose can somehow arise spontaneously and doesn't need a purpose-giver? If so, can you explain the reason you think this?

Why would it need to arise at all? You seem to have been advocating quite a bit recently for the eternal universe hypothesis yourself.
Sam
Re: The day the sun danced in the sky.
March 02, 2015 04:49PM
Thorn, Re: "Christ is this still going?"

Did He answer you? lol


Re: "If you say something could exist but you don't know what it is, you are saying it could be any possible thing. Obviously, it could not exist as an impossible thing. This is self-evident and doesn't need explaining.

Try applying your argument to other things and seeing how silly it sounds."

I would never say something could exist without knowing wtf that something is because that something could be self-contradicting like the Purposegiver most people believe exists.
Re: The day the sun danced in the sky.
March 02, 2015 04:58PM
Quote
Sam
Thorn, Re: "Christ is this still going?"

Did He answer you? lol


Re: "If you say something could exist but you don't know what it is, you are saying it could be any possible thing. Obviously, it could not exist as an impossible thing. This is self-evident and doesn't need explaining.

Try applying your argument to other things and seeing how silly it sounds."

I would never say something could exist without knowing wtf that something is because that something could be self-contradicting like the Purposegiver most people believe exists.

OK how about this proposition:

"There could be species of creature on earth which haven't yet been discovered by humans"

Would your argument apply here?

Let's try:

"You say that there could be species of creature on earth which haven't yet been discovered by humans.

Yet you can't tell us what these species are like - or anything about them!

Therefore I would put to you that these creatures could be spineless vertebrates!

So how can you say that something is possible if it might be impossible?"

Does that work?

No, it is utter hogwash.
Sam
Re: The day the sun danced in the sky.
March 02, 2015 05:16PM
Yep, hogwash. We finally agree on something!

We already know spineless vertebrates don't exist. Why would anyone say one could exist? There have been multitudes of newly discovered creatures on earth and they all have certain things in common which makes it rational to believe other creatures with similar attributes possibly exist.
Re: The day the sun danced in the sky.
March 02, 2015 05:18PM
Quote
TheThorn
Quote
Dick
I don't think we should ignore the fact that every purpose has someone capable of committing intentional acts behind it. No purpose arises spontaneously. Every purpose is an intentional act.

So actually what we're talking about here is the alleged existence of a purpose-giver and not the unknown ( and even you admit the purpose is unknown ) purpose itself. Another way of saying this is: no purpose-giver, no purpose.

So what should we call this alleged purpose-giver if not God, the traditional name used for "creator of all that is"?

OTOH, perhaps you disagree with this and believe purpose can somehow arise spontaneously and doesn't need a purpose-giver? If so, can you explain the reason you think this?

Why would it need to arise at all? You seem to have been advocating quite a bit recently for the eternal universe hypothesis yourself.

purpose: the reason that something is done or created.

If the universe is eternal then the universe was never created.
Re: The day the sun danced in the sky.
March 02, 2015 05:32PM
Quote
Dick
Quote
TheThorn
Quote
Dick
I don't think we should ignore the fact that every purpose has someone capable of committing intentional acts behind it. No purpose arises spontaneously. Every purpose is an intentional act.

So actually what we're talking about here is the alleged existence of a purpose-giver and not the unknown ( and even you admit the purpose is unknown ) purpose itself. Another way of saying this is: no purpose-giver, no purpose.

So what should we call this alleged purpose-giver if not God, the traditional name used for "creator of all that is"?

OTOH, perhaps you disagree with this and believe purpose can somehow arise spontaneously and doesn't need a purpose-giver? If so, can you explain the reason you think this?

Why would it need to arise at all? You seem to have been advocating quite a bit recently for the eternal universe hypothesis yourself.

purpose: the reason that something is done or created.

If the universe is eternal then the universe was never created.

As I always say, if you don't like word x,y,z, offer an alternative. I think everyone knows perfectly well what I mean when I say 'Purpose' but if you feel there is a more precise term, do suggest one.
Re: The day the sun danced in the sky.
March 02, 2015 05:40PM
Quote
Sam
Yep, hogwash. We finally agree on something!

So why do you believe that the argument works any better in any other context?

Quote

We already know spineless vertebrates don't exist. Why would anyone say one could exist? There have been multitudes of newly discovered creatures on earth and they all have certain things in common which makes it rational to believe other creatures with similar attributes possibly exist.

Yes, and we know that square circles and married bachelors can't exist - they are words that cannot describe any real thing.

So if something says that "X could exist" then it is implicit that "X" could not be something that could not exist.

This is not difficult...
Sam
Re: The day the sun danced in the sky.
March 02, 2015 06:07PM
How could anyone possibly name the thing you have invented that has no attributes and no evidence for its existence? On the contrary, I do NOT know wtf you mean, lol..

"So if something says that "X could exist" then it is implicit that "X" could not be something that could not exist."

Unless X is self-contradictory which makes it irrational for someone to say X could exist. Define X then we can talk. If you can't you are pissing in the wind.
Re: The day the sun danced in the sky.
March 02, 2015 06:14PM
Quote
Sam
How could anyone possibly name the thing you have invented that has no attributes and no evidence for its existence? On the contrary, I do NOT know wtf you mean, lol..

"So if something says that "X could exist" then it is implicit that "X" could not be something that could not exist."

Unless X is self-contradictory which makes it irrational for someone to say X could exist. Define X then we can talk. If you can't you are pissing in the wind.

FFS sake Sam.

For the argument to work, then all possible things it could be would have to be impossible to exist.

You get this right? Otherwise it is just babbled nonsense!

I’m starting to suspect that you are being mischievously faux-obtuse rather than simply muddled in your thinking…
Sam
Re: The day the sun danced in the sky.
March 02, 2015 06:47PM
How can you know if X is not self-contradictory if it is not defined. What if X = square circle? We don't know if it is or not because you won't/can't define it. If anything is possible then it is possible that your X is self-contradictory. If you just want to stomp your foot and insist that X possibly exists without defining X in any way, shape or form then be my guest but it's not rational to say that. See how ontology works? You don't get to make something up without defending its possibility for existence. A square circle is still a thing. It's a thing that is impossible to exist. X might also be a thing that is impossible to exist.
Re: The day the sun danced in the sky.
March 02, 2015 06:50PM
Quote
Sam
How can you know if X is not self-contradictory if it is not defined. What if X = square circle? We don't know if it is or not because you won't/can't define it. If anything is possible then it is possible that your X is self-contradictory. If you just want to stomp your foot and insist that X possibly exists without defining X in any way, shape or form then be my guest but it's not rational to say that. See how ontology works? You don't get to make something up without defending its possibility for existence. A square circle is still a thing. It's a thing that is impossible to exist. X might also be a thing that is impossible to exist.

A square circle is not a thing, it is a combination of two contradictory words.

I don’t know how to be any clearer:

1. It is not possible for something to exist which is self-contradictory.

2. Therefore there is zero chance of any potential God being self-contradictory.

3. Therefore we cannot claim the impossibility of any potential God on the basis that it could be self-contradictory.

I actually can’t believe I have given this gobbledegook as much bandwidth as I have already.

Enough.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/02/2015 09:30PM by TheThorn.
Re: The day the sun danced in the sky.
March 02, 2015 06:52PM
Lol
Sam
Re: The day the sun danced in the sky.
March 02, 2015 06:55PM
Abe's God is a thing that is self-contradictory. Yours could be as well so you can't rationally say you know it isn't, can you?

"Enough"

Lol, really?
Re: The day the sun danced in the sky.
March 02, 2015 06:59PM
Quote
Sam
Abe's God is a thing that is self-contradictory. Yours could be as well so you can't rationally say you know it isn't, can you?

"Enough"

Lol, really?

Not wishing to get into a debate about whether "Abe's God" is self-contradictory or not, let's say that it is self-contradictory.

What does that mean?

It means that "Abe's God" is not a thing.

Right?
Re: The day the sun danced in the sky.
March 02, 2015 06:59PM
You are not making sense at all Sam... Please stop it's embarrassing
Sam
Re: The day the sun danced in the sky.
March 03, 2015 01:22AM
Just sit back and enjoy feeling superior, tuk.

Thorn, Re: "It means that "Abe's God" is not a thing.

Right?"

Wrong. These two definitions of "thing" would include Abe's God

: an object or entity not precisely designated or capable of being designated

: idea, notion

Right?
Re: The day the sun danced in the sky.
March 03, 2015 09:29AM
Quote
Sam
Just sit back and enjoy feeling superior, tuk.

Thorn, Re: "It means that "Abe's God" is not a thing.

Right?"

Wrong. These two definitions of "thing" would include Abe's God

: an object or entity not precisely designated or capable of being designated

: idea, notion

Right?

As I established a few posts back, when I say "thing" I am referring to something that exists.
Sam
Re: The day the sun danced in the sky.
March 03, 2015 05:23PM
Lol, I'm sure you are.
Re: The day the sun danced in the sky.
March 03, 2015 05:28PM
Quote
Sam
Lol, I'm sure you are.

Sam,
Can you stop messing around and just accept that this nonsense is a broken argument so we can move on please?
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Click here to login


This forum powered by Phorum

Cookies Consent Policy & Privacy Statement. All Rights Reserved. SelectSmart® is a registered trademark. | Contact SelectSmart.com | Advertise on SelectSmart.com | This site is for sale!