|
Post by gadreel on Sept 29, 2022 1:10:32 GMT
I'm addressing your accusation that I'm incapable of explaining things in a way that can be understood. It is generally accepted that things that are created require a creator. It's all fine and dandy if your contention is that the universe wasn't created, but that doesn't negate the fact that nothing can bring itself into existence. Any questions so far? Have I said anything you don't understand? Re: EDIT I must be overlooking your answer. Would you mind answering it again? I said nothing can bring itself into existence, and I asked if you understood that. Was your answer yes or no? I honestly don't see it.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Sept 29, 2022 1:12:45 GMT
I'm addressing your accusation that I'm incapable of explaining things in a way that can be understood. It is generally accepted that things that are created require a creator. It's all fine and dandy if your contention is that the universe wasn't created, but that doesn't negate the fact that nothing can bring itself into existence. Any questions so far? Have I said anything you don't understand? Re: EDIT I must be overlooking your answer. Would you mind answering it again? I said nothing can bring itself into existence, and I asked if you understood that. Was your answer yes or no? I honestly don't see it. Is that a yes, then?
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Sept 29, 2022 1:17:21 GMT
I told you already, I told what your argument would be and how it was correct as it is simply a worthless tautology, clearly something that does not already exist cannot do anything, except of course come into existence.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Sept 29, 2022 1:25:09 GMT
I told you already, I told what your argument would be and how it was correct as it is simply a worthless tautology, clearly something that does not already exist cannot do anything, except of course come into existence. I'll address your assertion that I'm the only one who knows what I'm doing later. For now, I'll just presume you understand that nothing can bring itself into existence and move on to baby step number two... Here are two statements: 1. Everything that exists needs a cause. 2. Everything that comes into existence needs a cause. Do you understand that these two statements are not the same?
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Sept 29, 2022 1:28:31 GMT
I told you already, I told what your argument would be and how it was correct as it is simply a worthless tautology, clearly something that does not already exist cannot do anything, except of course come into existence. I'll address your assertion that I'm the only one who knows what I'm doing later. For now, I'll just presume you understand that nothing can bring itself into existence and move on to baby step number two... Here are two statements: 1. Everything that exists needs a cause. 2. Everything that comes into existence needs a cause. Do you understand that these two statements are not the same? sweet jesus, yes obviously these are two separate statements, as the words are different. so just so you are getting what you need, I accept and agree with the statement that nothing can bring itself into existence, and I accept that your two statements differ from each other (fuck this is going to be so funny)
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Sept 29, 2022 1:34:21 GMT
I'll address your assertion that I'm the only one who knows what I'm doing later. For now, I'll just presume you understand that nothing can bring itself into existence and move on to baby step number two... Here are two statements: 1. Everything that exists needs a cause. 2. Everything that comes into existence needs a cause. Do you understand that these two statements are not the same? sweet jesus, yes obviously these are two separate statements, as the words are different. so just so you are getting what you need, I accept and agree with the statement that nothing can bring itself into existence, and I accept that your two statements differ from each other (fuck this is going to be so funny) I didn't ask if you accepted or agreed with it. I asked if you understood it because I want to make sure I'm explaining it in a way that can be understood.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Sept 29, 2022 6:00:25 GMT
sweet jesus, yes obviously these are two separate statements, as the words are different. so just so you are getting what you need, I accept and agree with the statement that nothing can bring itself into existence, and I accept that your two statements differ from each other (fuck this is going to be so funny) I didn't ask if you accepted or agreed with it. I asked if you understood it because I want to make sure I'm explaining it in a way that can be understood. sweet jesus, I understand the words, are you seriously trying to build an argument by just getting me to accept that words mean things, whether what you are saying is true or not is irrelevant??
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Sept 29, 2022 6:23:17 GMT
I didn't ask if you accepted or agreed with it. I asked if you understood it because I want to make sure I'm explaining it in a way that can be understood. sweet jesus, I understand the words, are you seriously trying to build an argument by just getting me to accept that words mean things, whether what you are saying is true or not is irrelevant?? I'm not asking about the words. I'm asking if you understand those statements. I'm sure it's difficult for you to answer directly and honestly, but refuting your insult isn't the end goal here. If you understand the difference between those two statements, then you should also understand what you're getting wrong about the first cause argument. If you need that explained as well, just ask and I'll do my best to explain it in a way that can be understood. Baby steps, remember?
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Sept 29, 2022 6:34:11 GMT
sweet jesus, I understand the words, are you seriously trying to build an argument by just getting me to accept that words mean things, whether what you are saying is true or not is irrelevant?? I'm not asking about the words. I'm asking if you understand those statements. I'm sure it's difficult for you to answer directly and honestly, but refuting your insult isn't the end goal here. If you understand the difference between those two statements, then you should also understand what you're getting wrong about the first cause argument. If you need that explained as well, just ask and I'll do my best to explain it in a way that can be understood. Baby steps, remember? I understand every word you said, how about you clearly tell me what I am getting wrong about the first cause argument.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Sept 29, 2022 7:28:44 GMT
I'm not asking about the words. I'm asking if you understand those statements. I'm sure it's difficult for you to answer directly and honestly, but refuting your insult isn't the end goal here. If you understand the difference between those two statements, then you should also understand what you're getting wrong about the first cause argument. If you need that explained as well, just ask and I'll do my best to explain it in a way that can be understood. Baby steps, remember? I understand every word you said... Cool. That means I'm no longer incapable of explaining things in a way that can be understood. I would like to say I'm a quick study, but to be honest, it's nothing I haven't said to you before. I'm not sure what changed, but I'm pretty sure it wasn't me. Anyway... You keep saying it's special pleading because it makes an exception for the first cause. That would be true if the premise was that everything must have a cause, as you keep insisting it is. However, the premise is that everything that comes into existence must have a cause. If you understand the difference, then I'm at a loss as to why you keep insisting it's the former because I thought for sure you weren't aware that you were changing the entire argument. As for those quantum particles spontaneously popping in and out of existence from nothing, we already covered that way back when we talked about Chapter 9 of Krauss' book and several times since then. Don't you remember? Nothing isn't really nothing. I suppose maybe I wasn't explaining that in a way that could be understood, but given this recent turn of events, it seems more likely that the problem was on the receiving end. If you have no more questions about that, I have one of my own: If X can do anything, is there anything X can't do?
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Sept 29, 2022 17:40:48 GMT
I understand every word you said... Cool. That means I'm no longer incapable of explaining things in a way that can be understood. I would like to say I'm a quick study, but to be honest, it's nothing I haven't said to you before. I'm not sure what changed, but I'm pretty sure it wasn't me. Anyway... You keep saying it's special pleading because it makes an exception for the first cause. That would be true if the premise was that everything must have a cause, as you keep insisting it is. However, the premise is that everything that comes into existence must have a cause. If you understand the difference, then I'm at a loss as to why you keep insisting it's the former because I thought for sure you weren't aware that you were changing the entire argument. As for those quantum particles spontaneously popping in and out of existence from nothing, we already covered that way back when we talked about Chapter 9 of Krauss' book and several times since then. Don't you remember? Nothing isn't really nothing. I suppose maybe I wasn't explaining that in a way that could be understood, but given this recent turn of events, it seems more likely that the problem was on the receiving end. If you have no more questions about that, I have one of my own: If X can do anything, is there anything X can't do? Anyway you cut it your first cause is special pleading, you simply plead that it's the one thing that does not have to start, so that it can exist without a cause. This is the bit that shows you dont understand, you have simply moved the goalposts. I have zero recollection of you ever discussing a book with me you might want to jog my memory.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Sept 30, 2022 1:26:51 GMT
It depends on how you define anything. So now it depends on what the person asking the question means? Funny how that works, but I'm going to pass on the semantic bullshit. Me: Everything that comes into existence needs a cause. You: If everything needs a cause, then what caused God? Still blaming me for these circular discussions?
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Sept 30, 2022 8:47:13 GMT
It depends on how you define anything. So now it depends on what the person asking the question means? Funny how that works, but I'm going to pass on the semantic bullshit. Me: Everything that comes into existence needs a cause. You: If everything needs a cause, then what caused God? Still blaming me for these circular discussions?
Pardon me, that one was my fault
"The answer (it) depends on how you define anything".
This is the part we we get our wires crossed, I hear you to think that I mean that if you ask the question, I respond how do you define anything, that is to say I ask you for a definition to begin with, this is not a back and forth conversation starter it is a question designed to make you think about something. What I am saying is that the answer to the question is "oh, well that depends on how you define omnipotence, as X or y, I personally think y because, example, what do you think" its designed to invoke discussion, and that discussion is around the nature of the subject.
do you see the implied rationale, that everything (that comes into existence) needs a cause, the argument is no different if you remove the existence part, you are just abstracting the argument back to a suggestion as to HOW this one thing that differs from all the rest, AHA! God never came into existence, so is the first cause, the prime mover the source, whatever you like to call it. its still the same argument. Any way you cut it it is saying god is special and exempt from the rule.
Just to be clear for the argument sake, I dont ponder what caused god (by which I also mean to say, I dont think about gods eternity either) , there is no point in my view, god is inscrutable, only the effect of god can be understood, at least in this manifestation on this plane at this time. I do like the first cause argument though, I mean it seems to make sense on one hand there is zero way we can know though. Just as if in the case that this is all a dream and nothing outside my consciousness is real I still have to interact with the world as if it was real, for me god is to me eternal and the first cause, even though that may not be the case for god itself.
EDIT
for punctuation purposes
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Sept 30, 2022 8:52:35 GMT
Sorry, is this what you meant by the book www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/topics/zbbdnrdI did not realise it was a book, I just looked at the linked page and I the one after it to confirm I had read the pertinent parts
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Sept 30, 2022 10:34:01 GMT
So now it depends on what the person asking the question means? Funny how that works, but I'm going to pass on the semantic bullshit. Pardon me, that one was my fault "The answer (it) depends on how you define anything". This is the part we we get our wires crossed, I hear you to think that I mean that if you ask the question, I respond how do you define anything, that is to say I ask you for a definition to begin with, this is not a back and forth conversation starter it is a question designed to make you think about something. What I am saying is that the answer to the question is "oh, well that depends on how you define omnipotence, as X or y, I personally think y because, example, what do you think" its designed to invoke discussion, and that discussion is around the nature of the subject. I'm not sure how "anything" can mean anything else (ha), but in this case, "anything" literally means any thing. There are no exclusions or qualifiers, and the question refers to the premise. Here it is again: If God (X) can do anything (Y), is there anything (Y) that God (X) can't do? As long as X=X and Y=Y, it doesn't matter how they're defined. I understand your counter-argument, and I agree with it just as I agree with CS Lewis when he said, "Nonsense remains nonsense even when we talk it of God." However, while all three of us (you, me, and Jack) agree that omnipotence doesn't include the ability to do what can't be done (I believe you called it "logical impossibilities"), neither the premise (God can do anything) nor the question (is there anything God can't do) assumes either way. Sometimes more information is required to answer a question, but this isn't one of those times. Omnipotence doesn't need to be defined because the premise isn't that God is omnipotent; it's that God can do anything. I find it interesting that you so readily equate the two: Me: If God can do anything, can he lift that rock? You: It depends on what you mean by omnipotence. Me: I didn't say omnipotence. You: Then it depends on what you mean by anything. Still think I'm the one playing semantic games? It is completely different if you remove "the existence part." I thought you understood this when you acknowledged the difference between "everything" and "everything that comes into existence." On a not-so unrelated note, why isn't "AHA! The universe never came into existence" special pleading? Or "AHA! These quantum fluctuations are coming into existence without cause!" I'm sorry, I don't understand that statement. Sorry, is this what you meant by the book www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/topics/zbbdnrdI did not realise it was a book, I just looked at the linked page and I the one after it to confirm I had read the pertinent parts Actually, I had you confused with Sarge. He's the one I was talking to about Krauss' book. (Chapter 9 of his book, A Universe from Nothing is titled "Nothing Is Something".) But I did say more or less the same thing to you before... IMDB2.freeforums.net/post/5566250/thread
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Oct 1, 2022 1:11:20 GMT
Pardon me, that one was my fault "The answer (it) depends on how you define anything". This is the part we we get our wires crossed, I hear you to think that I mean that if you ask the question, I respond how do you define anything, that is to say I ask you for a definition to begin with, this is not a back and forth conversation starter it is a question designed to make you think about something. What I am saying is that the answer to the question is "oh, well that depends on how you define omnipotence, as X or y, I personally think y because, example, what do you think" its designed to invoke discussion, and that discussion is around the nature of the subject. I'm not sure how "anything" can mean anything else (ha), but in this case, "anything" literally means any thing. There are no exclusions or qualifiers, and the question refers to the premise. Here it is again: If God (X) can do anything (Y), is there anything (Y) that God (X) can't do? As long as X=X and Y=Y, it doesn't matter how they're defined. I understand your counter-argument, and I agree with it just as I agree with CS Lewis when he said, "Nonsense remains nonsense even when we talk it of God." However, while all three of us (you, me, and Jack) agree that omnipotence doesn't include the ability to do what can't be done (I believe you called it "logical impossibilities"), neither the premise (God can do anything) nor the question (is there anything God can't do) assumes either way. Sometimes more information is required to answer a question, but this isn't one of those times. Omnipotence doesn't need to be defined because the premise isn't that God is omnipotent; it's that God can do anything. I find it interesting that you so readily equate the two: Me: If God can do anything, can he lift that rock? You: It depends on what you mean by omnipotence. Me: I didn't say omnipotence. You: Then it depends on what you mean by anything. Still think I'm the one playing semantic games? It is completely different if you remove "the existence part." I thought you understood this when you acknowledged the difference between "everything" and "everything that comes into existence." On a not-so unrelated note, why isn't "AHA! The universe never came into existence" special pleading? Or "AHA! These quantum fluctuations are coming into existence without cause!" I'm sorry, I don't understand that statement. Sorry, is this what you meant by the book www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/topics/zbbdnrdI did not realise it was a book, I just looked at the linked page and I the one after it to confirm I had read the pertinent parts Actually, I had you confused with Sarge. He's the one I was talking to about Krauss' book. (Chapter 9 of his book, A Universe from Nothing is titled "Nothing Is Something".) But I did say more or less the same thing to you before... IMDB2.freeforums.net/post/5566250/thread You are 100% correct, I have been wrong the whole time. I apologise profusely for my attitude over this.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Oct 1, 2022 2:52:52 GMT
I'm not sure how "anything" can mean anything else (ha), but in this case, "anything" literally means any thing. There are no exclusions or qualifiers, and the question refers to the premise. Here it is again: If God (X) can do anything (Y), is there anything (Y) that God (X) can't do? As long as X=X and Y=Y, it doesn't matter how they're defined. I understand your counter-argument, and I agree with it just as I agree with CS Lewis when he said, "Nonsense remains nonsense even when we talk it of God." However, while all three of us (you, me, and Jack) agree that omnipotence doesn't include the ability to do what can't be done (I believe you called it "logical impossibilities"), neither the premise (God can do anything) nor the question (is there anything God can't do) assumes either way. Sometimes more information is required to answer a question, but this isn't one of those times. Omnipotence doesn't need to be defined because the premise isn't that God is omnipotent; it's that God can do anything. I find it interesting that you so readily equate the two: Me: If God can do anything, can he lift that rock? You: It depends on what you mean by omnipotence. Me: I didn't say omnipotence. You: Then it depends on what you mean by anything. Still think I'm the one playing semantic games? It is completely different if you remove "the existence part." I thought you understood this when you acknowledged the difference between "everything" and "everything that comes into existence." On a not-so unrelated note, why isn't "AHA! The universe never came into existence" special pleading? Or "AHA! These quantum fluctuations are coming into existence without cause!" I'm sorry, I don't understand that statement. Actually, I had you confused with Sarge. He's the one I was talking to about Krauss' book. (Chapter 9 of his book, A Universe from Nothing is titled "Nothing Is Something".) But I did say more or less the same thing to you before... IMDB2.freeforums.net/post/5566250/threadYou are 100% correct, I have been wrong the whole time. I apologise profusely for my attitude over this. Thanks! You do the same.
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Oct 4, 2022 4:49:46 GMT
Well that was a boring and predictable argument that went no where. But if you still need a reason to continue…I reject your FIRST premise based on the fact that it is an assertion that can never be demonstrated.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Oct 4, 2022 9:01:54 GMT
Well that was a boring and predictable argument that went no where. But if you still need a reason to continue…I reject your FIRST premise based on the fact that it is an assertion that can never be demonstrated. Care to elucidate?
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Oct 4, 2022 22:45:42 GMT
Well that was a boring and predictable argument that went no where. But if you still need a reason to continue…I reject your FIRST premise based on the fact that it is an assertion that can never be demonstrated. Care to elucidate? This is just a version of the Kalam: P1 Anything which begins to exist must have a cause P2 The universe began to exist C Therefore, the universe had a cause I reject all premises of this argument and declare it a failure from start to finish. This cosmological argument was popularized by Christian apologist William Lane Craig as the starting point for another argument: [If the universe has a cause, then an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists who sans (without) the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and enormously powerful. Therefore, an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and enormously powerful.] Proponents tend to try to bolster the first premise by asserting that “something cannot come from nothing”, a nonsensical and illogical statement which cannot be supported in any evidence based argument. This argument presumes (with no justification) that there could have ever been “nothing” in the first place. And if you’re defining nothing as the absence of any properties, then you can’t make any statements about “nothing” as it has no properties to examine or make conclusions about. We have no knowledge about what can or can’t come from the absence of anything BECAUSE there is something (and as far as we know has always been something). It’s also an internally inconsistent argument for a Christian (or any theist) to make as it necessarily require special pleading when the logic is applied to their god. According to them, God is both something AND existing with no explanation of where God came from. The reason P1 of Kalam was created was to put God in a “special” category of something which did not begin to exist. The problem here is that it’s a begging the question fallacy since that’s what the argument is trying to prove in the first place. It’s the assertion of a specific property of the god which they cannot demonstrate in order to prove that this god must exist and have that property. But it’s nothing more than a tautology that doesn’t end up proving anything.
|
|