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 
Sam
Re: The day the sun danced in the sky.
February 18, 2015 05:47AM
It's not irrelevant if there's no such thing as fairies, I mean, eternalfoundationalbeinggodnothings. You believe a god is the simplest explanation? Lol, only if you are simpleminded. Your CreatorGodthing would be the very definition of complex, wouldn't you think? Or do you think in real world terms at all?
Re: The day the sun danced in the sky.
February 18, 2015 06:21AM
Tuk, you didn't say that you disagreed with me or that some statement I made (IYO) was false. You said that I had contradicted myself. Do you know what a contradiction is? If so and if you still believe that I contradicted myself then either point out the contradiction or retract your claim, please.
Re: The day the sun danced in the sky.
February 18, 2015 06:33AM
I see you can't follow a logical discussion it's much easier for you to ignore questions, make stupid puns, and lol your way out of proving your beliefs...

No Sam, the simplest explanation isn't the most complicated explanation. Assuming God is the very definition of complex would be to have a very particular idea stuck in your head that is assuming much more than what I have defined... But when I ask you to tell me how you envision God all you can think of is a void, absolutely nothing...

For you God is impossible and improbable, too simple and too complex, @#$%& you are just throwing dung arguments at a wall to see what sticks aren't you?
Re: The day the sun danced in the sky.
February 18, 2015 06:36AM
Answer my questions Dick. Your responses will prove you hold contradictory beliefs...
Re: The day the sun danced in the sky.
February 18, 2015 06:50AM
Quote
tuk22
Sure my patience isn't wearing thin at all...

Do we live in a world absent of God?

If yes, prove it. Prove that there is no eternal foundation that accounts for all reality...

If you don't know welcome to agnosticism

I am an agnostic by some definitions of that word but I'm an atheist any way you look at it owing to my complete lack of belief in any god.

To your question . . . As I pointed out to you above, to justify a belief that an alleged entity exists, evidence of that entity's existence is necessary. An eternal universe is no more in need of a foundation than an eternal God, should one have existed, would be. The claim "The universe needs a foundation" would have merit only if the universe could be shown to be temporal, that is, that it had a beginning in time. Since there is no evidence to that effect and, worse for that claim, there now seems to be evidence against it, the claim can be safely dismissed.
Sam
Re: The day the sun danced in the sky.
February 18, 2015 06:55AM
tuk, You have no definition of the godthing you say is possibly existent Iwhich I'm guessing is why you think it's so simple?) but not only existent, right? The creator of the universe, right? And it's somehow a simple eternal foundational being that created the most complex things we can identify. How could a being create something that is more complex than itself? Reason tells me that's impossible. You are invoking a most complex entity to explain how and why it made the big bang go boom? Sounds an awful lot like the Xian goddidit stupidstition of your fellow godthingists. We don't need gods anymore so why keep the idea alive? Why do you encourage clinging to such immature imagery? No one wants to play the IntelligentDesigner game with you anymore.
Re: The day the sun danced in the sky.
February 18, 2015 07:35AM
So you are a weak atheist who has the positive belief that it's improbable that God exists, real probability is knowledge, so you, the agnostic believe you have special knowledge...

That's crazy.

And here we go with the term 'need' again, assuming wrong that Gods existence is a scientific question when it's obvious it's philosophical ie metaphysical

"The universe needs a foundation" would have merit only if the universe could be shown to be temporal, that is, that it had a beginning in time

Wrong. You are assuming God and the universe are separate entities. If the universe is eternal God would be the foundation, the fundamental being ie thing of the universe, in this dimension or any other... Again, there is no scientific theory that conflicts with theology because theology isn't science, it's philosophy. God can exist in any possible world. Seriously you talk about 'need' I'll ask you if the universe is eternal is Gods existence impossible? Do you really think it's contradictory because if you do you seriously lack imagination and the ability to conceptualize...

But you said need, and just what necessity are you referring to? Scientific? Again, no sheit theology isn't science. But materialism isnt science. Naturalism isn't science. Metaphysical foundations are not science. Do you think your new pet theory eliminates philosophy? It's absurd! No here is the real problem you were a Christian and the only god concept you can wrap your brain around is a god who created the world ex nihilio

Since there is no evidence to that effect and, worse for that claim, there now seems to be evidence against it, the claim can be safely dismissed.

No you failed. Further, if you continue this belief you prove to us it's just faith based. Since you think faith based beliefs are trivial you have some tension with your worldview...
Re: The day the sun danced in the sky.
February 18, 2015 07:56AM
Absurd I already defined God twice in this thread. Ontological terms are the simplest terms, it requires an extra assumption to claim God is simple or complex. No evidence for either so no need to assume either.

Reason doesn't tell you that's impossible. Your boy Dawkins believes just that... That simple things caused more complex things...

And no I'm not assuming a complex being created the universe... Pay attention, you are the one assuming that.

I'm saying the simplest metaphysical explanation to account for all reality is an eternal being, ie something.

We don't need Gods? Quit claiming authority of science it absolutely does not argue for atheism that's stupid...

Why do you encourage clinging to such immature imagery? No one wants to play the IntelligentDesigner game with you anymore.

Give up drop your copy of the God delusion and admit defeat. You two have done absolutely nothing to prove we live in a world absent of God. It's faith based and clear that you hold atheistic beliefs because you desire the lifestyle. It's your culture now and identity. It would be way too hard to let go after so much personal investment
Re: The day the sun danced in the sky.
February 18, 2015 11:02AM
Tuk wrote: I'm saying the simplest metaphysical explanation to account for all reality is an eternal being, ie something

Yes, you've said that several million times now and you've still given no one the first reason to believe that it's true -- especially if the universe, as it now appears, never had a beginning.

What for some reason you can't seem to get (and maybe it's because you've argued for so long that the universe did have a beginning) is that there was never any proof that "all this" (i.e., the universe) had a beginning. What you also don't get is that it appears there is now reason to believe that the universe did not have a beginning. What has no beginning is in no need of a foundation. As your hero W.L. Craig says "[Only] That which begins to exist, has a cause."

What he implies here and says directly in other places is that whatever does not begin to exist is in no need of a cause or foundation. The universe, it appears, never began to exist.

If it is your argument now that even things which do not begin to exist also need a cause (or foundation), then explain why an eternal God doesn't need a cause (or foundation)?
Re: The day the sun danced in the sky.
February 18, 2015 04:20PM
Quote
Sam Wrote:
Isle, Re: "Virtually any evidence can be used as evidence for more than one thing, even opposite things."

This definition of evidence renders it meaningless. There is a difference between USING something as evidence and identifying evidence that reliably favors one explanation over another.

First, that was not a definition of evidence, It's simply a fact 'about' evidence. Second, the fact that statistics, as per the example I gave, can be used as evidence for more than one thing doesn't make evidence meaningless at all. I think your still unable to get past the fact that evidence does not have to meet the standards of proof to be evidence. Even if you think the evidence doesn't meet the standards of proof and you are not persuaded by the evidence…It's still evidence. Circumstantial evidence, for instance, is evidence that relies on an inference to connect it to a conclusion of fact. A piece of circumstantial evidence doesn't usually meet the standards of proof, but it's still evidence that can be used to build a case.

Eyewitness testimony can be and IS used as evidence. Any eyewitness testimony might or might not be convincing or persuasive to you, and even though it's known to not always be reliable, it's still used as evidence in a court of law. In 2112, a case was brought before the Supreme Court that sought to prohibit unreliable eyewitness testimony to be used as evidence in a court of law. It was struck down. Justice Ginsburg wrote in the majority opinion. “The fallibility of eyewitness evidence does not ... warrant a due process rule requiring a trial court to screen such evidence for reliability before allowing the jury to assess its creditworthiness,”…

Re: "Does evidence exist in favor of godthings being the most likely explanation for Fatima or anything else?"

That's a non sequitur. It is a question that is part of the process of "weighing the evidence". It couldn't be asked if the evidence being assessed didn't exist.
Sam
Re: The day the sun danced in the sky.
February 18, 2015 06:57PM
Theology/philosophy is mental masturbation. I've been over it for decades. It's way more interesting to contemplate the nature of reality using the best science we have. I don't need to make sense of any weird possibilities. Probabilities drive my beliefs and level of knowledge. Keep your godthings for your own psycho/social need satisfaction. I know gods are not real. Everyone else knows it, too, lol. Just too in love with the idea of gods to let it go. Sad.
Re: The day the sun danced in the sky.
February 18, 2015 09:17PM
Yes, you've said that several million times now and you've still given no one the first reason to believe that it's true -- especially if the universe, as it now appears, never had a beginning.

It's absolutely true; there is not a more simple explanation.

And no this theory doesn't replace the mainstream concept that the universe had a beginning. It's incomplete. Just like the theory that the universe exists inside a massive black hole is incomplete. We are only discussing a hypothetical 'if the universe is eternal' and no that doesn't imply God does not exist since God can be the fundamental reality of this universe.

What for some reason you can't seem to get (and maybe it's because you've argued for so long that the universe did have a beginning)

It's current scientific understanding and has not been replaced by another theory yet... You argued the same fact dipshit...

that there was never any proof that "all this" (i.e., the universe) had a beginning

Not my term. I use the 'cosmos' for that... My definition of the universe only includes all known reality, what our observations tell us. To me the cosmos is the whole of being, or anything that actually exists not only what is known.

What you also don't get is that it appears there is now reason to believe that the universe did not have a beginning. What has no beginning is in no need of a foundation. As your hero W.L. Craig says "[Only] That which begins to exist, has a cause."

No there is no reason to believe the known universe is eternal, the theory is incomplete. And you are wrong... God is eternal, the universe is a part of Gods being; therefore the universe is eternal. Or the universe is eternal, God is a foundation of the universe; therefore God is eternal. There is no need to assume everything in the universe is eternal, there is no temporal reality, or God isn't a part of this universe. Quit acting like you know all this...

The only argument that makes any sense is the Universe is eternal, God does not exist in this universe; therefore God isn't a foundation of this universe.

If it is your argument now that even things which do not begin to exist also need a cause (or foundation), then explain why an eternal God doesn't need a cause (or foundation)?

My argument has always been it's possible that something can come from nothing ie a void, I've always maintained that I can conceive of objects appearing in a void without cause... Nice try Dick trying to get me to defend WLC good fail... I spent hours arguing this point 2 years ago with another poster... CTD [www.selectsmart.com]

And we are still waiting for you two to acknowledge your faith that we live in a world absent of God...



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/18/2015 09:21PM by tuk22.
Sam
Re: The day the sun danced in the sky.
February 18, 2015 10:23PM
It's all about the faith, 'bout the faith. Tuk wants to be the only person who has no faith yet his level of faith is thru the roof! Here ya go, tuk. I am agreeing the statement "I know gods are impossible to exist in this world" is a statement of "faith". Will that do it for you? hehe
Re: The day the sun danced in the sky.
February 19, 2015 11:10AM
Tuk wrote: And we are still waiting for you two to acknowledge your faith that we live in a world absent of God...

All else being equal . . .

faith is required to believe that something exists which obviously doesn't or to believe that something doesn't exist which obviously does.

My belief about god's absence from this world requires no more faith than does my belief about global warming's presence -- even less, in fact.
Re: The day the sun danced in the sky.
February 19, 2015 11:40AM
Quote
Dick
Tuk wrote: And we are still waiting for you two to acknowledge your faith that we live in a world absent of God...

All else being equal . . .

faith is required to believe that something exists which obviously doesn't or to believe that something doesn't exist which obviously does.

My belief about god's absence from this world requires no more faith than does my belief about global warming's presence -- even less, in fact.

You do get that what one person finds 'obvious' and the other doesn't, when it comes to such topics, is essentially an expression of faith?

EDIT:

On a more positive note, you are at least now admitting that you do harbour a belief, and that it requires faith. That's progress.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/19/2015 02:08PM by TheThorn.
Re: The day the sun danced in the sky.
February 19, 2015 04:39PM
Quote
Sam Wrote:
Probabilities drive my beliefs and level of knowledge.

As they do with virtually everybody. Agnostics, however, are willing to acknowledge that there are some questions the answers to which are underdetermined. For such questions, agnostics have the ability to withhold judgment. These are the questions for which probabilities are meaningless since there is insufficient information to calculate a meaningful probability. There are, it appears, people who seem genuinely unable to withhold their judgement in these instances, especially when there is something at stake for them emotionally. Hard core theists and hard core atheists, from my experience, are good examples of this.

It's during the process of forming such beliefs that the human capacity to rationalize really shines! winking smiley
Re: The day the sun danced in the sky.
February 19, 2015 04:50PM
thumbs up, Isle.

.
Sam
Re: The day the sun danced in the sky.
February 19, 2015 05:47PM
As though "withholding judgment" is not a result of some emotional need but good try, Isle! And by the looks of all the sore navals around here there's an awful lot of constant friction between judging and withholding, lol. Perhaps you agnostics just don't have the skills or confidence in your skills to make good judgments? You seem to think we need to know a number to figure what's more likely than not to be true or false. We don't. We just need enough info that determines one claim is more likely than another. It's not rocket science, just science.
Re: The day the sun danced in the sky.
February 19, 2015 05:58PM
Quote
Sam
We just need enough info that determines one claim is more likely than another. It's not rocket science, just science.

Everyone agrees on this.

The disagreement is over whether we have enough, or indeed any info at all, on which to base that judgement.
Sam
Re: The day the sun danced in the sky.
February 19, 2015 06:28PM
What makes it so difficult for you to discern what is most likely true or most likely false?
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!