“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#1202 Apr 26, 2013
NightSerf wrote:
<quoted text>
There are certain personality types that can't seem to refrain accusing adversaries of lying when it would be more accurate to say that they are wrong, mistaken, ignorant, or simply that he disagrees with them. High strung? Overly emotional? I don't know, but it is obvious that when such accusations are flying, emotions are more involved than intellect.
Or?

Over the years, the poster has discovered that subtle simply does not work with certain sorts of folk: godbots, specifically.

They just don't get the difference between "lying" and "mistaken".

To a godbot? Nobody is really mistaken-- they are always deliberately lying. Always.

So there's little reason to use subtly on them-- they won't get it anyhow.

:)

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#1203 Apr 26, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Buck just said God caused itself. He will also claim it's eternal therefore it is uncaused, however he has just stated that to claim something is uncaused is the same as causing itself, which is not possible.
Oh wait - it's possible as long as your invisible magic Jewish wizard is the daddy, but not possible for anything else at all. Ever. Therefore the invisible magical Jewish wizard did it no matter what and there's no way out of it. Let's just forget about the part where it has zero evidence.(shrug)
I didn't say anything about God. Why do you lie?

Can you show where I ever made a claim that God caused the universe? I'll save you the trouble. You lied about that, too. In fact, you may check the recent exchange with Polymouth where I said the universe requires a cause, and nobody knows what it is.

You lost the argument on causation of the universe, then employed the fallacy of the Red Herring.

You decided to drag the infamous dead fish (red herring) across the trail to throw off the scent of the hounds. In your case, you used a made-up claim (strawman) that I argued for a magical god.

Two classic fallacies in one post.

Impressive, Dud.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#1204 Apr 26, 2013
Thinking wrote:
If only religitards tried.
<quoted text>
Yeah... one of the hallmarks of religion, is to never try.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#1205 Apr 26, 2013
NightSerf wrote:
<quoted text>
There are certain personality types that can't seem to refrain accusing adversaries of lying when it would be more accurate to say that they are wrong, mistaken, ignorant, or simply that he disagrees with them. High strung? Overly emotional? I don't know, but it is obvious that when such accusations are flying, emotions are more involved than intellect.
On the other hand, often, when someone is actually lying, as the "Dude" to which you directed your remarks is lying, it is an intellectual exercise, although a rudimentary one, to point out that he is lying.

The most recent case in point is when "Dude" reported to the gallery that I claimed a magical Jewish god caused the universe based on my arguing that the universe requires a cause.

He is likely not privy to the knowledge that I do not believe in a magical god, Jewish or otherwise, though it might be to little effect if he did know, since he is proven a liar.
Imhotep

United States

#1206 Apr 26, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
While I have never indulged in M myself (allergic to smoke), I do understand from my acquaintances who do, that it makes one have a good appetite.
Which is why it's a very, very good drug for people on chemo--which often suppresses the appetite. Which is bad, as people on chemo need all the strength (food) they can keep down.
Bon apatite!
I have smoked marijuana since College
Most of what people of been told about marijuana is utterly untrue

I predict the whole country will decriminalizing eventually.

Many countries already have some of gone so far is to say any drug is ok the case of Portugal

So far the best pot is an The Netherlands or Jamaica all of the United States and Canada are quickly catching up as High quality growers.

Yes for chemo patients pain management sleep management nausea and a host of other disorders marijuana is the ticket.

Tobacco is vastly more dangerous
And alcohol? FAGIDABOUTDIT!

And now I am proud to present for your enjoyment

April 25, 2013
FIRST BUSH LIBRARY QUIETLY CELEBRATES ELEVENTH ANNIVERSARY

GUANTÁNAMO BAY, CUBA
(The Borowitz Report)—While former Presidents and a star-studded cast of other dignitaries gather in Dallas, Texas, today for the dedication of the George W. Bush Presidential Library and Museum, the first library opened by Mr. Bush, located in Guantánamo, Cuba, celebrated its eleventh anniversary in January with considerably less pomp.

And for Harland Dorrinson, who curates Mr. Bush’s other library, the lack of attention stings.

“We’re actually the first George W. Bush library, if anybody cares to know,” Mr. Dorrinson said, adding that “no media whatsoever” covered the Guantánamo library’s eleventh anniversary.

“They say that millions of people are going to visit the George W. Bush Library in Dallas every year,” he said.“On a good day, we’re lucky if we see one or two C.I.A. guys in between interrogations, looking for a Tom Clancy novel.”

While Mr. Dorrinson said that he doesn’t expect his library to get the kind of attention likely to be enjoyed by its fancier counterpart in Dallas “any time soon,” he calls the absence of recognition “hurtful.”

“It seems like there was a lot of excitement about this place when we opened in 2002,” he said.“When was the last time you heard anyone in Washington even say the word ‘Guantánamo?’”

That’s a shame, he added, because the library at Guantánamo has a lot to offer that the George W. Bush Presidential Library and Museum in Dallas doesn’t:“If you go to their Web site, you see that they’re closed some days. We’re going to be open forever.”

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#1207 Apr 26, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong.
<quoted text>
Compounded wrongness.
<quoted text>
Assumes that time is around for causality to be relevant. Wrong yet again.
<quoted text>
Sorry, but you are simply wrong yet again. There is no logical problem with an infinite sequence of past events.
1. Causality is relevant with or without time. No such assumption.

2. The logical problem with an infinite series of past events is more than a problem - it is a pure logical contradiction. Any infinite series is an abstract idea which is IMPOSSIBLE to apply to actual events.

With infinite past, to arrive at the present, an infinite series of events would have to have occurred and been completed now.

Infinite past means. if sufficient detection capability were available, infinity could be counted. It is countable, in other words.

Then it would not be infinity.

You are claiming A is both A, and non-A.

That, sir, is a logical contradiction of high order.

Not understanding this, you should not lecture people on logic.

Furthermore, not understanding that "infinity" is a useful fiction to be used as a tool in mathematics suggests you will never understand mathematics, either.

The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#1208 Apr 26, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
I didn't say anything about God. Why do you lie?
Because I didn't, as shall be demonstrated below.
Buck Crick wrote:
Can you show where I ever made a claim that God caused the universe?
Yes.
Buck Crick wrote:
I'll save you the trouble. You lied about that, too.
Apparently not, as it is in this thread. I'm sure somebody could find it in other threads too, since after all you ARE in an atheist forum arguing AGAINST atheism. I'll let you take the time to figure out the logical consequences of that position.
Buck Crick wrote:
In fact, you may check the recent exchange with Polymouth where I said the universe requires a cause, and nobody knows what it is.
You lost the argument on causation of the universe, then employed the fallacy of the Red Herring.
Actually you have only your assertions that the universe "must" be caused because quite obviously you're an expert on quantum physics. Then you hypocritically claim that this cause does not require a cause because there cannot be an infinite series of past events - another baseless claim.
Buck Crick wrote:
You decided to drag the infamous dead fish (red herring) across the trail to throw off the scent of the hounds. In your case, you used a made-up claim (strawman) that I argued for a magical god.
Two classic fallacies in one post.
Impressive, Dud.
Then if there is no magical god then perhaps you can point us all to the scientific one? Since as far as I'm aware there IS NO scientifically testable hypothesis for the possible existence of an intelligent entity that resides beyond our universal boundaries that is ultimately responsible for existence as we know it.

And we both know that I've been asking you guys to provide that for a LONG time...

And while you ask me to check the exchange with Polymath I will ask you to check the previous exchange just a few short pages earlier:

http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/atheism/T...

So let's check some things shall we?

1 - You claimed there cannot be an infinite series of past events.

2 - You claimed the universe must have a cause.

3 - If so there must be a previous uncaused phenomenon to cause the universe.

4 - You claimed there is evidence of a God.

5 - Such beings have a habit of being considered to be NON-finite. If not then if they began to exist then they too must also have a cause, according to your own rules. But then that would also violate your rule that the infinite does not exist:

http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/atheism/T...

6 - You deny that we can invoke something uncaused but you do not apply that to your own position.

Ergo you require special exemption to your own rules no matter what. Something we've been pointing out to Shibolet since the beginning of this thread.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#1209 Apr 26, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>

I didn't say it was an indictment of logic. I said it was an indictment of what people *think* is logical. Often people think something is logical when it is an unproven assumption that can be wrong.
Then you are saying nothing.

Sure, logic applied to misinformation is invalid.

That says nothing, not one thing at all, about valid application of logic, or, in your case, violation of logic.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#1210 Apr 26, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
On the other hand, often, when someone is actually lying, as the "Dude" to which you directed your remarks is lying, it is an intellectual exercise, although a rudimentary one, to point out that he is lying.
The most recent case in point is when "Dude" reported to the gallery that I claimed a magical Jewish god caused the universe based on my arguing that the universe requires a cause.
He is likely not privy to the knowledge that I do not believe in a magical god, Jewish or otherwise, though it might be to little effect if he did know, since he is proven a liar.
Well you HAVE claimed in the past that there is evidence of God, that Jesus was a real historical figure, and you've also been fond of bog-standard creationist apologetics. It was therefore not an unreasonable leap to presume your theistic position has its roots in evangelical Abrahamic theology, probably predominantly Protestant in nature (although you may have certain issues with certain petty details of both the main branches of Catholic and Protestant Christianity, the primary basis of both ultimately being the same - Goddidit with magic).

So if God is not magic then I wonder if there is a scientific one? I suppose you could be one of these guys:

http://www.rael.org/

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#1211 Apr 26, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Because I didn't, as shall be demonstrated below.
<quoted text>
Yes.
<quoted text>
Apparently not, as it is in this thread. I'm sure somebody could find it in other threads too, since after all you ARE in an atheist forum arguing AGAINST atheism. I'll let you take the time to figure out the logical consequences of that position.
<quoted text>
Actually you have only your assertions that the universe "must" be caused because quite obviously you're an expert on quantum physics. Then you hypocritically claim that this cause does not require a cause because there cannot be an infinite series of past events - another baseless claim.
<quoted text>
Then if there is no magical god then perhaps you can point us all to the scientific one? Since as far as I'm aware there IS NO scientifically testable hypothesis for the possible existence of an intelligent entity that resides beyond our universal boundaries that is ultimately responsible for existence as we know it.
And we both know that I've been asking you guys to provide that for a LONG time...
And while you ask me to check the exchange with Polymath I will ask you to check the previous exchange just a few short pages earlier:
http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/atheism/T...
So let's check some things shall we?
1 - You claimed there cannot be an infinite series of past events.
2 - You claimed the universe must have a cause.
3 - If so there must be a previous uncaused phenomenon to cause the universe.
4 - You claimed there is evidence of a God.
5 - Such beings have a habit of being considered to be NON-finite. If not then if they began to exist then they too must also have a cause, according to your own rules. But then that would also violate your rule that the infinite does not exist:
http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/atheism/T...
6 - You deny that we can invoke something uncaused but you do not apply that to your own position.
Ergo you require special exemption to your own rules no matter what. Something we've been pointing out to Shibolet since the beginning of this thread.
That's a lot of words, Dud, but I didn't see you produce where I said God caused the universe, which was your claim.

You are faced with my conflicting stated claim that nobody knows what caused the universe.

Do you retract the claim?

If you will, I will retract the observation that you are a liar.

Try to focus on the actual claims this time, instead of blustering.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#1212 Apr 26, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Well you HAVE claimed in the past that there is evidence of God, that Jesus was a real historical figure, and you've also been fond of bog-standard creationist apologetics. It was therefore not an unreasonable leap to presume...
Ah, the tell. You admit you "presume".

You started off well this time, but soon diverted to euphemism.

You said I claim there is evidence of God, which is true, and that Jesus was a historical person, which is true.

I make both claims, and they are rational and defensible.

But then you went sideways into bluster again.

Helpful tip: Be specific, and think about what you are attributing to the other before you blurt it. Otherwise, you are open to the charge of faulty characterization, to put it politely.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#1213 Apr 26, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
Helpful tip:
Have you tried >>not<< lying?

No?

Well... there you go.

“It's just a box of rain...”

Since: May 07

Knoxville, TN

#1214 Apr 26, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
On the other hand, often, when someone is actually lying, as the "Dude" to which you directed your remarks is lying, it is an intellectual exercise, although a rudimentary one, to point out that he is lying.
The most recent case in point is when "Dude" reported to the gallery that I claimed a magical Jewish god caused the universe based on my arguing that the universe requires a cause.
He is likely not privy to the knowledge that I do not believe in a magical god, Jewish or otherwise, though it might be to little effect if he did know, since he is proven a liar.
So what do you believe? It would be harder to misconstrue it if it was plainly laid out and clearly expressed.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#1215 Apr 26, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
1. Causality is relevant with or without time. No such assumption.
Wrong. The cause of something must precede it in time. So time is required for causality. Unless, of course, you have a very different definition of causality. In which case, please present your definition.
2. The logical problem with an infinite series of past events is more than a problem - it is a pure logical contradiction. Any infinite series is an abstract idea which is IMPOSSIBLE to apply to actual events.
Many abstract ideas can be applied to actual events: two is such an abstract idea. Your *claim* that infinity cannot be so applied, but have not demonstrated your claim/
With infinite past, to arrive at the present, an infinite series of events would have to have occurred and been completed now.
yes, so?
Infinite past means. if sufficient detection capability were available, infinity could be counted.
Wrong.
It is countable, in other words.
Then it would not be infinity.
You are claiming A is both A, and non-A.
That, sir, is a logical contradiction of high order.
Except that is not my claim. That is your misunderstanding of my claim.
Not understanding this, you should not lecture people on logic.
Not only do I lecture people on logic, I do so professionally. You fail.
Furthermore, not understanding that "infinity" is a useful fiction to be used as a tool in mathematics suggests you will never understand mathematics, either.
I understood more mathematics when I was twelve than you have ever understood.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#1216 Apr 26, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Then you are saying nothing.
I was pointing out that logic says nothing at all about causality. Questions about causality are questions about physics. And modern physics shows that causality is not an applicable concept in all cases.
Sure, logic applied to misinformation is invalid.
And you are an expert on that.
That says nothing, not one thing at all, about valid application of logic, or, in your case, violation of logic.
Logic consists of the propositional, the quantifier, and the modal calculus. It can be extended to the logic of equality, but that begins to shade into mathematics, which is an extension of logic. In particular, logic alone says nothing about causality.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#1217 Apr 26, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
Infinite past means. if sufficient detection capability were available, infinity could be counted. It is countable, in other words.
Then it would not be infinity.
Just as an aside, and only to clarify a standard terminology, there *is* a division in possible infinite sizes between 'countably infinite' and 'uncountably infinite'. These are technical terms, with 'countably infinite' corresponding to the size of the collection of counting numbers. The surprising discovery of Cantor is that there are 'larger infinities'.

This is not a critique of your claims (I gave the critique in a previous post), just a comment about terminology. You seem to be confusing 'finite' with 'countable'.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#1218 Apr 26, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
That's a lot of words, Dud, but I didn't see you produce where I said God caused the universe, which was your claim.
So your contention is that God exists and did NOT cause the universe? Unusual to be sure, so perhaps you could clarify this specific point.
Buck Crick wrote:
You are faced with my conflicting stated claim that nobody knows what caused the universe.
Do you retract the claim?
Nope. YOUR contradictions are not MY problem.
Buck Crick wrote:
If you will, I will retract the observation that you are a liar.
Your personal opinions are irrelevant. Who are you again?(shrug)
Buck Crick wrote:
Try to focus on the actual claims this time, instead of blustering.
I am focussing on your actual claims.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#1219 Apr 26, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Ah, the tell. You admit you "presume".
You started off well this time, but soon diverted to euphemism.
You said I claim there is evidence of God, which is true, and that Jesus was a historical person, which is true.
I make both claims, and they are rational and defensible.
But then you went sideways into bluster again.
Helpful tip: Be specific, and think about what you are attributing to the other before you blurt it. Otherwise, you are open to the charge of faulty characterization, to put it politely.
No bluster on my part. See Buck, when you say stuff you have to understand that sometimes what you say has logical consequences. It's no different to when I point out to reality-denying YEC fruitloops who claim evolution definitely did not happen but in the same breath claim Noah's global flood was real. Which is exactly the same as saying evolution happened but evolution definitely did not happen. They then complain that I am "lying" or being otherwise dishonest for allegedly misrepresenting their posts, when in actual fact they simply have not grasped the logical consequences of their own posts. This is because they are frankly clueless as to what they're talking about.

So back to Buck who claims that the universe "must" be caused although we don't know what caused it, and also that (a) God exists. So you are either arguing that God caused it (requiring special exemptions from your own rules), OR, that something ELSE caused it and God is UTTERLY irrelevant.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#1220 Apr 26, 2013
NightSerf wrote:
<quoted text>
So what do you believe? It would be harder to misconstrue it if it was plainly laid out and clearly expressed.
Well he believes in (a) God who may or may not have caused the universe because really we don't know WHAT caused it yet because it's possible that God was just sitting around minding his own business in non-infinity, when all of a sudden it was like "F CK me - a big bang!!!"

Apparently.

Kinda makes ya wonder then, does even God know what caused it if he didn't?
Imhotep

United States

#1221 Apr 26, 2013
If God dropped acid, would he see people?

Jesus could've made it up Mount Calvary without assistance if he had cross-trained.

He should've planned in advance. ;)

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Atheism Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 30 min KiMare 232,888
Can Atheists Know God Does Not Exist When They ... 1 hr havent forgotten 146
Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... 1 hr Eagle 12 2,412
A New Kinder, Gentler Atheism 4 hr _Bad Company 141
Islam is the Enemy (Sep '12) 4 hr thetruth 34
God' existence 4 hr thetruth 67
Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038 (Apr '12) 20 hr _Bad Company 23,198
More from around the web