SingleDad:
I don’t care if it’s you or Nen…you two fight it out.
Patrick, SingleDad has given you just such a forum…
of course, I would debate that the sky is blue with SingleDad - he might not be the pushover debater you are looking for.
It’s simply not possible to eliminate other’s access to the thread. Perhaps if you were to reconsider others will refrain from making comments. Personally, I don’t mind occasional comments. I understand that you don’t desire multiple opponents, but IMO those posts in question were offered to acknowledge that spectators are present. Please return to the thread.
You are not a moderator. You have no authority to decide who can participate in one of these threads and who cannot. Singledad said he’d take you on via email. Will you accept his challenge, or do you dismiss him as another “loser?”
Satan a “loser?” You’ve GOT to be joking. You don’t even know who he is.
Sig Alert!
Sure, and I can also cite prominent philosophers who support the position, so what’s the point of arguing that?
Let me ask you, did the universe just pop out of nothing? It did? How? Where did all the matter come from?
Your turn.
Oh, please, people - you’re expecting Pashley to actually participate in a civilized, educated, intelligent debate? That might actually be proof of God.
Nen opens a forum to his specifications, and he won’t go because someone else posted there - they didn’t join the debate, they merely said they were watching. So Pashley won’t go. Then SingleDad offers him an even more secure forum, and Pashley blows him off out of hand.
Draw your own conclusions. Maybe I’ll post mine in the Pit, as they don’t belong here.
Esprix
Evidently, I rock.
Ask the Gay Guy!
Wow, is this an active thread, or what?
Esprix,
First of all, it’s none of you business.
Secondly, I’m asking for a civilized forum, the likes of which you can’t find here. I’ll take anyone on, but this time, it’s on my terms. I’d have gone in with Nen in a heart beat, but I will NOT put up with childish remarks from idiots.
I guess I’LL have to figure out a way to do this, since the brain drain around here can’t.
Where are the moderators when they can actually do something useful?
Meanwhlile, you can answer the direct question posed to you at the top of page three. Thanks for your time.
First and foremost, please refrain from personal attacks such as calling fellow members “idiots,” secondly, I am sure our fellow members would refrain from posting in the thread aside from noting their presence (much like a sign-in sheet at a meeting where only two parties have the floor). If that scenario were to be the case, is it not an acceptable forum?
I DID ANSWER THE UNCAUSED CAUSER ARGUMENT! See page 1!
**
Well, if being a bad-ass means asking a question of you which you cannot answer, then yes, I suppose I am.
Not that I ever claimed as much. Modesty certainly forbids me!
But you know what? I’d rather be known as a bad-ass than a dumb-ass…
Well, let’s see here…
On this thread, I asked a question you could not answer.
On another thread - you know, the one where you copied from a website verbatum without citing your source? - I exposed all of the bullshit you posted as the lies and half-truths they were. And you have yet to respond to that.
If bringing up arguments that you cannot answer makes me a loser, I sure don’t want to be the alternative… :rolleyes:
Yer pal,
Satan
http://www.raleighmusic.com/board/Images/devil.gif
Still not smoking, but away from my meter!
Look, they started the idiot name calling, not me. I would like to not have that in this forum, but some can’t handle my arguments, so they get abusive. Why aren’t you asking them to stop calling names?
I’m sorry, I don’t believe that no one will not jump in with a “wheee-heee!”, “tooth-fairy”, “Go get his Christian ass!” or other childish comments. Look at the one YOU just set up! Not only did “Satan” have to make a useless, stupid comment, but you had to add to it! Jeez, let me in there at once!
I’m beginning to think the only way it can be carred out, sans a specially programed web page, is by email…
pashley:
I don’t think that my comment was useless or stupid. The existence of a soul is definitely related to the existence of god.
Why don’t you give them the benefit of the doubt and enter the arena? If you’re not satisfied, we can continue the debate via email.
Which is exactly what SingleDad has offered to do. Whether you debate him or Nen, I’m sure he’d be glad to set up the debate exactly as he’s offered.
[aside]Is it just me, or do we finally have someone that can rival Phaedrus’ paralogia?[/aside]
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good dipped in chocolate.
I hesitate to post this, as it may be interpreted as supporting Pashley, but it must be said. Many of you have cited the elctron/anti-electron example as proof that things can pop in out of nowhere, with no causality. However, didn’t Feinman come up with the idea that anti-electrons are actually normal electrons that, for some unknown reason, have suddenly started traveling backward through time? To us, as we are travelling forward through time, this event would look like an electron and an anti-electron colliding and vanishing, but both particles are actually the same particle, except one is going backwards through time. OK, I admit, it’s a little out there, but it makes more sense to me than violating the Laws of Thermodynamics by destroying both particles with nothing left over. If a particle travelling backwards through time suddenly started travelling forwards, it would would appear to us that two particles popped into existence. It’s a tough concept to wrap your mind around, I know, but a fun mental exercise. (Seeing how long it takes for someone to get it seems to be a decent measure of raw intelligence)
That said, I still cannot accept Pashley’s argument as anything resembling logic. (I do believe in God, wholeheartedly, and am a Christian, in case that matters, but I also believe the Bible was written by fallible men and Creation was one of the parts they fouled up) By his logic, God would require a creator, as would God’s creator, etc etc…
That is the question we are all waiting for you to respond to, by the way, Pashley. How do you explain that inconsistency?
Okay, so you say that everything has to have a causal agent… Except for God, who does not.
Answer this then:
(1) Why do the rules not apply to Him, those same rules that you outlined in the OP?
(2) How can you logically claim that if God is an exception that the universe (or anything else, really) is not?
Your responses thus far to the first question seem to be, “Because He’s God” but that does not answer why, omnipotent or not, He didn’t need a causal agent. Couldn’t an omnipotent being have a causal agent? Why or why not?
Your response thus far to the second seem to say, “You think the Universe came out of nothing?” One should not answer a question with a question. You have to give a locical reason why the universe did not come out of nothing. Just saying IT HAD TO is not answering the question, espeially since you answered the same question about God with HE DID NOT.
You don’t seem to understand that saying, “Here’s why,” and actually having the explanation make sense using logic, i.e. explaining your answer, are to different concepts.
Here’s what I see happened to our friend here. He came cross this little philosophical “proof” of God on a website somewhere (he is good about taking things from websites and not citing them), posts it, and of course does not have the experience, savvy, or knowledge to actually DEBATE this point.
It’s similar to when the folks over at LBMB post “The sun is shrinking,” and then, when they got their answer, NOT replying at all, because they could not. They were just parrots, and they didn’t know what they were saying, only that it had to be good, because is was on “their said,” so it MUST be right.
Ths explains nicely why our friend cannot elaborate on answers, because I fear that he himself does not know what he is talking about. Of course, this frustrates him, which is why he starts to call people like me names - I would like to know where in this thread I called Pashley anything. I think I asked questions, and now I ask more.
Remember that part about being “slow to anger,” Pashley? Do you need for me to give you Bible instruction as well as lessons on logic?
So, can you answer the additionl questions? I do believe that if you cannot, I have “won” this debate. I’m waiting… Unless you want o go over the scripture again - maybe I can find some verses about lying (claiming work that was not your own), and a few other thing your behavior here shows you don’t seem to be up on.
I use a King James Version myself… You might find the NIV a bit more to your level. Either way, let m know!
Yer pal,
Satan
http://www.raleighmusic.com/board/Images/devil.gif
Still not smoking, but away from my meter!
A) You goaded him on, whatever…(sigh)
B) Here’s the deal: I will enter, but if I see some stupid-ass adolescent comment by some moron, I’m done. I don’t need to deal with jerks like that. Do you?
Pashely has said, in reference to other postersL
[Moderator Hat ON]
Pashley, consiering that in this very thread David warned someone for calling you an idiot, what makes you think you can call other people an idiot with impunity? Take that sort of stuff to the Pit.
[Moderator Hat OFF]