Comments
141 - 160 of 1,922 Comments Last updated Oct 20, 2013
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#143
Apr 4, 2013
 
Shibolet wrote:
<quoted text>
-------
Creationist! This time you have failed in the use of your intuition
my friend. Neither creationist nor evolutionist. Like Einstein in his answer if he was an atheist denied by saying neither a theist of a personal God, Creationism for me is seasoned with a metaphorical grain of salt if you know what I mean.
The theological particulars of your position are irrelevant when your position when boiled down to its basic form is ultimately the very same thing. That is why you are merely regurgitating creationist arguments.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#144
Apr 4, 2013
 
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
I speak for everyone when I say prove your f*cking god you lying piece of sh*t forum troll.
Leave the irony meters alone, Skip.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#145
Apr 4, 2013
 
Shibolet wrote:
The very same balderdash of every atheist when he or she is pressed
against the corner. "There is not enough info for what we assert."
But they are happy and ready to discard any kind of evidence from any bird of a different feather. Very convenient!
If you only had evidence to discard.(shrug)
Shibolet wrote:
Oh! So you do have evidences that the universe exists don't you? Who doesn't? Can you mention one single human being who does not know of any evidence that the universe exist? He must be mentally sick to deny it.
If the Primal Cause is not necessary who caused the universe to exist, the universe itself?
You presume a "who" is necessary. It could simply be a "what".
Shibolet wrote:
That's something no one can provide evidence for.
That includes you.
Shibolet wrote:
Besides, there is no logic in something to cause itself because to do so it must have existed and it didn't.
It might have. In fact you already claim it did. You just claim it "must" be a who instead of a what.
Shibolet wrote:
I'll provide scientific evidence for my position if you can produce evidences that the universe caused itself into existence.
Want to give it a try?
No need for me to claim the universe caused itself for I have not made that claim. All I observe is that the universe is here.
Shibolet wrote:
Last but not least, for the "erroneous" claim that heavier objects fall faster than lighter ones. Go up into a high building and drop a brick with a feather and figure how long it will take them to hit the floor. I don't think you know what you are talking about.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#146
Apr 4, 2013
 
Shibolet wrote:
<quoted text>
--------
I have indeed shown that the universe is caused. You have not refuted me. If you don't know what refutation is, it is not only to say "No, it is not." You must give your debator a different option for discussion. Where is the beef? I still don't have it.
You have not shown the universe is caused. It may or may not be. And even if it was, you have also taken an unfounded extra leap by claiming it was caused an intelligent agent, an entity for which you have no evidence that it even exists. And then further, you have taken yet another extra leap by claiming that this undemonstrated entity of yours does not require a cause. Ergo you've just slammed straight into the infinite regression fallacy, meaning that if your cause does not require a cause then neither does ours. To suggest otherwise is a hypocritical double-standard.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#147
Apr 4, 2013
 
Shibolet wrote:
Wrong again! Omniscience is not incompatible with free will but intervention in the affairs of man is. God may be Omniscient but He
can't intervene in human affairs.
If you've ever read the Bible you would see that it intervened in human affairs rather frequently. Of course you could be arguing for a completely different God that we are unaware of or one you've proposed yourself. But either way as I said earlier the theological specifics are pretty much irrelevant to us. What IS important here is that you have claimed your god has limits. This means it is not the "all-powerful" God proposed by the vast majority of ancient myths, including the one of the Abrahamic religions. Therefore I would like to know how you determined the limits of God in an objectively verifiable manner via the scientific method. However be aware that this would require you to scientifically demonstrate that this being even exists first.

The last person who was able to do that died 2,000 years ago. And even that was hearsay.
Shibolet wrote:
What's the use to know events before they happen if one cannot interfere with them or prevent them from happening? That's what atheists don't like about learned
theists: A God clean of anthropomorphism.
No God is clean of anthropomorphism. Not even the one you propose, as ultimately you are attempting to make it match up to ancient notions of cause and effect. A real non-anthropomorphic God would not necessarily have to adhere to your presumptions.
Shibolet wrote:
My Bible does not lie about anything. The lie is in the eye of the beholder who is a member of the literal interpretation club.
If the Bible is not literal then it is simply inaccurate. This is why we know the Earth is not a flat square circle, there was never a global flood, and donkeys and lizards cannot talk. If it requires interpretation based on allegory and parable then all interpretations are subjective and are therefore just as valid as each other. This rules out the Bible as being a reliable document for determining the nature of reality.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#148
Apr 4, 2013
 
Shibolet wrote:
<quoted text>
-----
Right. The Primal Mover was not created. Therefore He is proved only by the things created and by the Logic that events cannot be
caused by themselves.
Therefore this primal mover of yours violates cause and effect. There is no getting around it.

Of course you have no idea whether or not this primal mover of yours is not also subject to cause and effect. However as things stand at the moment, even IF cause and effect was a requirement for the origin of our universe you have zero evidence from which to claim the cause was intelligent.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#149
Apr 4, 2013
 
Shibolet wrote:
<quoted text>
-------
If the universe did not cause itself, nevertheless it exists, what happened, did it pop out of the hat of the magician? You surely must be kidding!
Like I said, the universe is uncaused.

Perhaps your difficulty is thinking there was a *time* before the universe. But time is *part* of the universe. That means that the universe existed whenever there was time (and, by extension, causality). That is precisely why it could not be caused.

And, I also want to point out your denigrating way of describing 'popping out of the hat of a magician'. No, there was no magician. A magician would be a cause and there could not have been a cause. Furthermore,'popping' also requires a previous time. Once again, the point is that time and the universe are co-existent.

Sorry if that hurts your head.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#150
Apr 4, 2013
 
Shibolet wrote:
<quoted text>
--------
One more chance to you: Did the universe create itself? Impossible!
That's the evidence you need that a Creator from outside the universe caused it to exist. If not, here is your turn to produce the evidence that the universe caused itself to exist.
Well it WOULD be evidence - IF you could demonstrate it was impossible. So far you have not provided evidence that it IS impossible.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#151
Apr 4, 2013
 
Shibolet wrote:
<quoted text>
------
I know that but you did not specify the conditions. You just said that it was erroneous to claim that all objects fall at the same rate and I have proved to you that's not true.
Now, for the universe as a whole having been caused, go ahead and tell me what kind of matter in the universe caused itself?
*I* specified the conditions as I specifically referred to Aristotle. He was wrong, period. And I have provided video evidence to that effect.

You're not also a moon-landing conspiracy-theorist are you?

:-/
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#152
Apr 4, 2013
 
polymath257 wrote:
Sorry if that hurts your head.
No you're not.

;-p

Since: Dec 10

Orefield, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#153
Apr 4, 2013
 
Shibolet wrote:
<quoted text>
-----
Right. The Primal Mover was not created. Therefore He is proved only by the things created and by the Logic that events cannot be
caused by themselves.
Logical fallacy: Special pleading

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#154
Apr 4, 2013
 
Shibolet wrote:
<quoted text>
-------
Creationist! This time you have failed in the use of your intuition
my friend. Neither creationist nor evolutionist. Like Einstein in his answer if he was an atheist denied by saying neither a theist of a personal God, Creationism for me is seasoned with a metaphorical grain of salt if you know what I mean.
You really should read up on Einstein some more-- his "god" was poetry, metaphorical.

To Einstein, "god" represented the non-sentient, blind and purely natural laws of the universe itself.

Not some pre-existing magic super-being such as YOU demand.

If asked, I would bet that Einstein would not agree that the laws of the universe existed prior to the big bang--but only came into existence >>as<< the big bang unfolded.

This is because unlike YOU? Einstein >>studied<< cosmology exhaustively.

Unlike YOU?

Einstein was quite familiar with the various cosmological theories.

He used the word "god" as just a metaphor.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#155
Apr 4, 2013
 
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Anyone else starting to think that Shibolet is a Poe?
Either that, or he's reading from various creationist websites.

And you know how >>stupid<< those sites can be...

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#156
Apr 4, 2013
 
Shibolet wrote:
<quoted text>
--------
Sorry Polymath, please do not take this as an offense but ALL your
arguments above contradict one another. And all because none of what I have said satisfies your preconceived notions. You remind me
of the shipwreck casualty trying every piece of wood afloat to save
your life. How much will be enough?
No-- reading comprehension is not one of your abilities, is it?

No WONDER you come across as ...

... rather poorly educated... you "read", but you can't follow what it is you are reading...

... sad.

Perhaps a remedial reading course is in your near future? Your local library can help.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#157
Apr 4, 2013
 
Shibolet wrote:
<quoted text>
--------
I have indeed shown that the universe is caused.
No-- you haven't. Not even a little bit. But you keep repeating this obvious lie.

Why?
Shibolet wrote:
You have not refuted me.
Yes, he did refute you-- usually with multiple pathways to the refutation. Any one would have been sufficient to prove you wrong.

But you keep repeating THIS lie too.

Why?
Shibolet wrote:
If you don't know what refutation is, it is not only to say "No, it is not."
Irony noted-- you keep lying "no it's not" yourself! As shown above...

LOL!
Shibolet wrote:
You must give your debator a different option for discussion. Where is the beef? I still don't have it.
You don't "have" it because you cannot comprehend what you read.

Seriously.

Go take a remedial reading class somewhere.

You're embarrassing yourself.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#158
Apr 4, 2013
 
Shibolet wrote:
<quoted text>
-------
Not I. You are the one making the accusation.
You keep lying.

Why?

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#159
Apr 4, 2013
 
Shibolet wrote:
<quoted text>
-------
Wrong again! Omniscience is not incompatible with free will but intervention in the affairs of man is. God may be Omniscient but He
can't intervene in human affairs. What's the use to know events before they happen if one cannot interfere with them or prevent them from happening? That's what atheists don't like about learned
theists: A God clean of anthropomorphism.
My Bible does not lie about anything. The lie is in the eye of the
beholder who is a member of the literal interpretation club.
You are so wrong, here-- an omniscient being who KNOWS the ONE AND ONLY future?

By that very KNOWING?

Prevents any and all free will-- does not matter if he "intervenes" or not-- the act of KNOWING, forces the future into that single pathway-- and eliminates any and all choice as a result.

The ONLY way free will can exist? Is if the future is UNKNOWN.

Omniscience, by definition, means "all knowing".

Which would include the ONE AND ONLY future: if there were an infinite of futures? WHICH ONE unfolds?

If this is NOT known? The god is NOT omniscient-- and your bible lied.

But if the future IS KNOWN?(omniscient)

Then the ONLY way that the ONE AND ONLY future can unfold, is if there is NO choice in the unfolding of it-- the ONE AND ONLY path MUST be followed like a rail-road track.

So.

Free will cannot co-exist with an omniscient deity.

Period.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#160
Apr 4, 2013
 
Shibolet wrote:
<quoted text>
----------
The Primal Cause does not have to be anything. He is what He is.
Even Moses who wanted to know Who He was, He said "I AM."
You just lied to yourself here:

First, you claim this:

"The Primal Cause does not have to be anything."

THEN? You lie about it here:

"He is what He is."

This is a multitude of lies, if your FIRST claim is valid:

You insist that this "primal" is a HE.

And that implies a whole host of conditions that REFUTE your first claim, such as sentience, gender, person-hood, etc.

You are not very good at this, are you?

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#161
Apr 4, 2013
 
Shibolet wrote:
<quoted text>
----
You! Talking about "ad homs"! Atheists are famous for that. Why don't you try to count how many times you have used "BS" in your responses to me? Start by post #92. That's an indecent ad hominem.
But that's okay yet. When you cross the board you will know. That's
when I will stop answering your questions.
Nope. I am labeling your CLAIM as bullsh7t.

I am not saying YOU are bullsh7t.

There is a vast difference between the two, isn't there?

But you? You were denigrating the PERSON-- which >>IS<< ad homeniem.

You don't get it, do you?(and no that isn't ad hom, that is an observation about you)

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#162
Apr 4, 2013
 
Shibolet wrote:
<quoted text>
-----
Right. The Primal Mover was not created. Therefore He is proved only by the things created and by the Logic that events cannot be
caused by themselves.
If you make a special exception for your mythological "prime mover"?

Why not make a SIMPLER claim about the universes?

Oh!

Your ego DEMANDS a "prime mover" in order to make you "special".

Is that it?

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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.

•••