mymistake Posted July 31, 2014 Share Posted July 31, 2014 i didnt say from NOTHING" I said from NOT something to Something. there is a HUGE difference. Perhaps in your mind but not to those who use the standard meaning of words. Not something = nothing. This is why I say you are not being rational. That singularity has to have preexisting materials to exist did it not? Unknown. otherwise the singualrity would be eternal but then this turns into a slippery slope and infinite transgression again What slippery slope? By observation we know that matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed. They seem to be infinite in existence. Beyond the cutting edge we have some strange theories but none of them support God. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator florduh Posted July 31, 2014 Super Moderator Share Posted July 31, 2014 What the fuck is this guy talking about? Anybody? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mymistake Posted July 31, 2014 Share Posted July 31, 2014 Ok back to logical Absolutes an error can be in existence even if a mind has not accessed the situation, or evaluated it or examined it. The error itself will still physically be there even if you do not know about it, an error is a term we use to detect logical error(loose definition) but even without the description we use to determine an error, its just a description not a reality of what actuality IS. just because we haven't put a description TO a term does not erase the reality. IF an arrangement of sticks form an X just because the letter x do not exist does not change the ACTUAL formation and that it is still there. When we later discover the letter X we can place that term back in time to what that arrangement of sticks WAS forward or Backward. There is prescriptive and descriptive. descriptive is about the norms of rules within a given moment of reality prescriptive would be the process of action in the way we could USE a description at ANY time instead of just in a particular time. Example. Roz in the car with Florduh they and they are heading to disney together to meet up with midniterider and mymistake, Roz is driving 80miles an hr because he is really excited about his new adventure here is the difference between presciptive logic and descriptive Prescriptive event. He comes upon road works and there is a sign announcing that he should slow down. This event can be modeled by the communicative act Descriptive event. A police car behind him tells him to slow down. This event can be modeled by the communicative act As a result he learns that he is speeding. Please stop using the words "logic" and "logical". Just stop. All of the above words I quoted - is that you attempt to say "people can be wrong and not realize it"? I think everyone else here would agree that people can be wrong and not realize it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orbit Posted July 31, 2014 Share Posted July 31, 2014 Your efforts to understand this nonsense are heroic, mm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roz Posted July 31, 2014 Share Posted July 31, 2014 It's just his roundabout way of trying to prove his god exists without any evidence. It's WLC but more convoluted (the improbable happened heh). It's like End3 in his genetics thread. He's also trying to prove his god happened when he says "The idea of myth is that it is an attempt at an explanation that was probably observed.....or at least that is my take." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1AcceptingAThiest1 Posted July 31, 2014 Author Share Posted July 31, 2014 I dont know how else to be clear other than by giving multiple examples of what i mean. and i do not fully understand the term axiom, so i will read multiple times what you said to try to put together the context clues of its meaning. New to the word, even if i have the definition some things take a bit to grasp until its seen more frequently. but according to dictionary defintion it is a statement or proposition that is regarded as being established, accepted, or self-evidently true.Thing is if an axiom is a truth that is self evident. To say that lA are axioms is to beg the question by saying they are simply self evident truths ebcasue they are self evident truths and fails to account for the existence of logical absolutes. Logic 1 Logic is a process of the mind. Logical absolutes provide the framework for logical processes 2 dictionary definition reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity. 3 other peoples definitions i agree with a tool humans use to decribe phenomenon or make sense of things so that reasonable conclusions can be made 4 then there is inductive logic i figure you know what these mean but if you need explanation i can certaintly give one 5 then there is deduction i figure you know what these mean but if you need explanation i can certaintly give one Logical Absolutes 1 consist of the laws of Logic, identitiy, non contradition,law of excluded middle etc 2 it also help with rational discourse ex. i could say i am alive and not alive in the same time in the same sense. This breaks the law of identtity 3 they are not dependent on location and time law of non contradiction would be true 1000 years from now and 1,000 year in the past 4. they are not part of the material work cant be found in atoms, under a rock, motion or heat cant big dug out of the ground etc 5 when i say truth statments i mean about Logical things and they are conceptual by nature which is self explanatory but jsut in case it isnt...it means theya re not dependent upon this universe for their existence i can expand upon any one of these points. but before i proceed disillusioend i wanted to see if you under stood these points with everyone else i will proceed If we say “Currently Unknown” and suspend our belief until Knowledge or evidence presents itself does that mean at some point supernatural entities will be known and detectable by science? this cant be “Currently Unknown” but “Never known” because science observes and experiments upon the natural but God is outside of the realm of science, unless it plans on changing its definition that nothing cannot bring itself into being, until it comes to Be, it does not exist, if it doesn’t exist yet then how can it cause anything. Logically something had to already exist without a cause, In order to start causing stuff, Scientists have already proved the universe had a beginning therefore it had a cause, nothing can give itself what it does not have, in order for the universe to change it would have had to give itself its future state before it changed. An acorn has potential to be a tree, but it is not yet a tree, it cannot be a tree or give itself something now, that it would come to have later. So you see the result of change cannot actually exist before the change, it can only change with the potential to change, it needs to be acted upon for that potential to be made actual. Something cannot actualize its own potential to exist, as this would require that it exist before it existed, which is self-contradictory. The universe consists of matter, space and time, there must be somrthing that exists outide of the characteristics in order to create those things, If there is nothing outside the natural universe then does this mean there is nothing that can cause the universe to change? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roz Posted July 31, 2014 Share Posted July 31, 2014 Christianity should be called "Sales 101." It really attempts every trick in the book in order to sell someone a figment of imagination. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
par4dcourse Posted July 31, 2014 Share Posted July 31, 2014 Ok. All your little sky friends exist. BTW, I know this deposed Nigerian prince who needs to get his fortune out of the country............ 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roz Posted July 31, 2014 Share Posted July 31, 2014 Ok. All your little sky friends exist. BTW, I know this deposed Nigerian prince who needs to get his fortune out of the country............ But you can't PROVE that Nigerian prince doesn't exist! So it must be true! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pratt Posted July 31, 2014 Share Posted July 31, 2014 how much must i pay for adminstration charges before getting my million bucks? since i have paid it, the prince must be true? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seven77 Posted July 31, 2014 Share Posted July 31, 2014 I dont know how else to be clear other than by giving multiple examples of what i mean. and i do not fully understand the term axiom, so i will read multiple times what you said to try to put together the context clues of its meaning. New to the word, even if i have the definition some things take a bit to grasp until its seen more frequently. but according to dictionary defintion it is a statement or proposition that is regarded as being established, accepted, or self-evidently true. Thing is if an axiom is a truth that is self evident. To say that lA are axioms is to beg the question by saying they are simply self evident truths ebcasue they are self evident truths and fails to account for the existence of logical absolutes. Logic 1 Logic is a process of the mind. Logical absolutes provide the framework for logical processes 2 dictionary definition reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity. 3 other peoples definitions i agree with a tool humans use to decribe phenomenon or make sense of things so that reasonable conclusions can be made 4 then there is inductive logic i figure you know what these mean but if you need explanation i can certaintly give one 5 then there is deduction i figure you know what these mean but if you need explanation i can certaintly give one Logical Absolutes 1 consist of the laws of Logic, identitiy, non contradition,law of excluded middle etc 2 it also help with rational discourse ex. i could say i am alive and not alive in the same time in the same sense. This breaks the law of identtity 3 they are not dependent on location and time law of non contradiction would be true 1000 years from now and 1,000 year in the past 4. they are not part of the material work cant be found in atoms, under a rock, motion or heat cant big dug out of the ground etc 5 when i say truth statments i mean about Logical things and they are conceptual by nature which is self explanatory but jsut in case it isnt...it means theya re not dependent upon this universe for their existence i can expand upon any one of these points. but before i proceed disillusioend i wanted to see if you under stood these points with everyone else i will proceed If we say “Currently Unknown” and suspend our belief until Knowledge or evidence presents itself does that mean at some point supernatural entities will be known and detectable by science? this cant be “Currently Unknown” but “Never known” because science observes and experiments upon the natural but God is outside of the realm of science, unless it plans on changing its definition that nothing cannot bring itself into being, until it comes to Be, it does not exist, if it doesn’t exist yet then how can it cause anything. Logically something had to already exist without a cause, In order to start causing stuff, Scientists have already proved the universe had a beginning therefore it had a cause, nothing can give itself what it does not have, in order for the universe to change it would have had to give itself its future state before it changed. An acorn has potential to be a tree, but it is not yet a tree, it cannot be a tree or give itself something now, that it would come to have later. So you see the result of change cannot actually exist before the change, it can only change with the potential to change, it needs to be acted upon for that potential to be made actual. Something cannot actualize its own potential to exist, as this would require that it exist before it existed, which is self-contradictory. The universe consists of matter, space and time, there must be somrthing that exists outide of the characteristics in order to create those things, If there is nothing outside the natural universe then does this mean there is nothing that can cause the universe to change? My response: With a side of: ------------ I admire the persistence of my fellow community members. Florduh, Roz, Disillusioned, Mymistake and all of the other hungry lions. You deserve several gold stars apiece and a frosty tall can to top it all off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1AcceptingAThiest1 Posted July 31, 2014 Author Share Posted July 31, 2014 What is the difference between a moderator and a Superator Mdoerator and when can i be one? Dont hate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roz Posted July 31, 2014 Share Posted July 31, 2014 Read this again, and more importantly watch the vid. The AE guys explain it very thoroughly http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/63906-call-medouble-a7-not-007-no-nice-athiests-allowed/?p=977131 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slave2six Posted July 31, 2014 Share Posted July 31, 2014 Here's my problem with your OP. You state that you are "open to learn" but that is a physical improbability when it comes to matters like deconversion. The physical makeup of your brain is affected by your normal thought processes. The neural pathways that allow you to think that your faith is reasonable are strengthened every time to hear a sermon, read your Bible in a certain way (e.g. ignoring how immoral that god is), etc. The process of deconversion is not like choosing peaches over nectarines. It is a serious, often tortuous journey in which not only is Reality smashing beliefs to bits but also the brain is physically changing. It's not for the faint of heart. You are a blind man interested in learning about colors. But you cannot understand colors until you are able to see. And once you do see, you will understand blindness in a more true and profound way. In short, unless you are wrestling with deconversion, there is no way for you to comprehend us. None. But having been formerly blind, we all understand your position and your doctrine far better than you do. There is no help for you until you are willing to throw away your belief system and take a dive into the world of rational thought. Sorry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
disillusioned Posted July 31, 2014 Share Posted July 31, 2014 I dont know how else to be clear other than by giving multiple examples of what i mean. and i do not fully understand the term axiom, so i will read multiple times what you said to try to put together the context clues of its meaning. New to the word, even if i have the definition some things take a bit to grasp until its seen more frequently. but according to dictionary defintion it is a statement or proposition that is regarded as being established, accepted, or self-evidently true. Thing is if an axiom is a truth that is self evident. To say that lA are axioms is to beg the question by saying they are simply self evident truths ebcasue they are self evident truths and fails to account for the existence of logical absolutes. I think that the issue here is with your understanding of the phrase "self-evidently true". This is an informal definition of an axiom. As I have been using the term, an axiom is a statement which is assumed to be true without justification. The axioms of a logical system are a (generally small) number of statements from which the other claims of that system are derived. Again, though, axioms in this sense are not logical absolutes. They are, ultimately, assumptions. Logic 1 Logic is a process of the mind. Logical absolutes provide the framework for logical processes 2 dictionary definition reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity. 3 other peoples definitions i agree with a tool humans use to decribe phenomenon or make sense of things so that reasonable conclusions can be made 4 then there is inductive logic i figure you know what these mean but if you need explanation i can certaintly give one 5 then there is deduction i figure you know what these mean but if you need explanation i can certaintly give one Alright. This is more along the lines of what I was looking for. Thank you for the clarification. Logical Absolutes 1 consist of the laws of Logic, identitiy, non contradition,law of excluded middle etc 2 it also help with rational discourse ex. i could say i am alive and not alive in the same time in the same sense. This breaks the law of identtity 3 they are not dependent on location and time law of non contradiction would be true 1000 years from now and 1,000 year in the past 4. they are not part of the material work cant be found in atoms, under a rock, motion or heat cant big dug out of the ground etc 5 when i say truth statments i mean about Logical things and they are conceptual by nature which is self explanatory but jsut in case it isnt...it means theya re not dependent upon this universe for their existence i can expand upon any one of these points. but before i proceed disillusioend i wanted to see if you under stood these points Alright. You list the laws of identity, non-contradiction and excluded middle as examples of your "logical absolutes". First, I would point out that there are useful systems of logic which do not include the law of excluded middle, but you are correct that the laws of identity and non-contradiction, at least, are generally incorporated in useful formal systems. Incidentally, it is generally accepted that these "laws" cannot, in any meaningful sense, be proven. Hence they must be assumed. It is possible to regard these principles as being immaterial, but it is not necessary to do so. They may also be regarded as being constructs of the human brain. Neither view is provable. In any event, your assertion that these principles are not dependent on this universe seems to me to be meaningless. There is no way to answer this question. We exist within the universe. All or our logical investigations, proofs and inquiries are conducted within the universe. Hence, we are able to make statements about the applicability and efficacy of various systems of logic within the universe. We have no way of judging what might or might not be a valid system beyond the universe. with everyone else i will proceed If we say “Currently Unknown” and suspend our belief until Knowledge or evidence presents itself does that mean at some point supernatural entities will be known and detectable by science? this cant be “Currently Unknown” but “Never known” because science observes and experiments upon the natural but God is outside of the realm of science, unless it plans on changing its definition that nothing cannot bring itself into being, until it comes to Be, it does not exist, if it doesn’t exist yet then how can it cause anything. Logically something had to already exist without a cause, In order to start causing stuff, Scientists have already proved the universe had a beginning therefore it had a cause, nothing can give itself what it does not have, in order for the universe to change it would have had to give itself its future state before it changed. An acorn has potential to be a tree, but it is not yet a tree, it cannot be a tree or give itself something now, that it would come to have later. So you see the result of change cannot actually exist before the change, it can only change with the potential to change, it needs to be acted upon for that potential to be made actual. Something cannot actualize its own potential to exist, as this would require that it exist before it existed, which is self-contradictory. The universe consists of matter, space and time, there must be somrthing that exists outide of the characteristics in order to create those things, If there is nothing outside the natural universe then does this mean there is nothing that can cause the universe to change? You seem eager to apply the law of cause and effect to the universe. This law is (generally speaking) known to apply within the confines of the universe. We do not know that it needs to apply to the universe itself. So yes, it is possible that the universe had a cause. But it is not necessary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roz Posted July 31, 2014 Share Posted July 31, 2014 this cant be “Currently Unknown” but “Never known” because science observes and experiments upon the natural but God is outside of the realm of science The christian keeps capitalizing God and does not use the plural form of the noun, which implies he's talking about his particular god, yeshitwa. He keeps bringing it up even though he says he's not here to prove his existence, only "to start a conversation." The vid below is an awesome lecture by Lawrence Krauss describing how particles pop in and out of existence in what is seemingly empty space. What's causing that? We don't know yet. But what is the christian wanting to bring up? Oh right, his 'God' must've caused those particles to magically appear. This is just like End3 with his genetics tie in to his original sin. Shit, I can recall when I've done the same exact thing as a christian attending Bio I at a christian university. Look at how microevolution works! But macro-evolution is obviously bullshit because of our god... Swallow your god damned pride and stop bringing up your god only to hide behind his impotence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waitingongod Posted July 31, 2014 Share Posted July 31, 2014 I'm a little late to the party, but did skim the previous posts as I got excited over the evidence being offered. Did I miss it? I did the usual b.s. of "what kind of evidence is acceptable", "let's define logic", "just want to have a conversation". When will the evidence be posted? I'd like to see it unfold live, if at all possible and not read about it tomorrow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator TheRedneckProfessor Posted July 31, 2014 Super Moderator Share Posted July 31, 2014 i didnt say from NOTHING" I said from NOT something to Something. there is a HUGE difference. That singularity has to have preexisting materials to exist did it not? otherwise the singualrity would be eternal but then this turns into a slippery slope and infinite transgression again You do realize that you're eventually going to have to explain how your god came into existence from NOT something, don't you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator florduh Posted July 31, 2014 Super Moderator Share Posted July 31, 2014 You do realize that you're eventually going to have to explain how your god came into existence from NOT something, don't you? Obviously, but not something is not nothing. Logic, motherfucker!!! Do you speak it??? Logic is not nothing, but then nothing would lead one to think that. Something logical, that is not not logical, can or cannot be possible within the singularity. Furthermore, this universe, possibly another universe or not, may or may not be logical in the same sense that not logical is logical. Sometimes not. See the logic? For example, if you existed in this or another universe before the singularity, would that not be evidence of an existence or non existence? Therefore, nothing from nothing leaves nothing, therefore God. At least according to my logic, but I could be not wrong or even wrong. Silly athiests. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1AcceptingAThiest1 Posted July 31, 2014 Author Share Posted July 31, 2014 you know how much money i could make for the amount of time i keep saying this?I cannot prove God to You. I cannot give you the evidence you want. No one has done it for thousands of years, so what makes you think i can? Im donating to this site so that it can stay afloat, you all seen the messages it has everywhere. I love this site, i love the people. I enjoy being here i like to hear the other side. I used to not be a christian myself so i relate in some ways and in some ways i dont. Not all christians are the same not all athiests are the same. I used to be an athiest and i know...This is the part where you chime in...YOU WERE NOT AN ATHIESTTT.. as you get wasted and drunk at the no true scostman Fallacy party. Roz im at work i wish i could watch that video, I watch AE all the time actually and plan to call in soon i wonder if they give me a copy if i make it on the show or if there a way to record it and put it on here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1AcceptingAThiest1 Posted July 31, 2014 Author Share Posted July 31, 2014 atheist is the default position right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roz Posted July 31, 2014 Share Posted July 31, 2014 Why did you become a christian. What compelled you to choose christianity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roz Posted July 31, 2014 Share Posted July 31, 2014 And you realize that even if you're anonymous we can still see you, right? 3 user(s) are reading this topic1 members, 1 guests, 1 anonymous users Roz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roz Posted July 31, 2014 Share Posted July 31, 2014 And please, while you are at it, what is your definition of "nothing" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thackerie Posted July 31, 2014 Share Posted July 31, 2014 Who created God? good question its like you said that would lead to infinite regression. Which is impossible. So someone had to knock over the first domino. We know the universe has a beginning so that is ruled out as being eternal We know no such thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts