I would also find the type of comments you described inappropriate in such a forum. I think that I may disagree what constitutes that type of comment. I don’t find posts such as “I’m here, who’s got the beer?” offensive, but simply MPSIMS-esque in nature. I do agree that something to the effect of “Hey, (insert name here). You’re an @#%ing @#%!” is inappropriate. Do you concur?
Please enter.
Well Satan, you still can’t read/let the logic sink in, so I’m not going to bother with you.
And why should I take advice from a “Christian” who doesn’t defend his faith, spits on others that do, and has the name “SATAN” as a board name? You hypocrite.
Odds that Patrick will completely ignore Satan’s last post: 3:1
Odds that Patrick will respond with obfuscation: 4:1
Odds that Patrick will respond with obfuscation and insult: 1.5:1
Odds that Patrick will make an honest attempt to answer Satan’s concerns and questions without taking offense: 1,280,832:1
-a-
Come on, Brian, I think we’ve found your new sig line.
pashley:
There’s an old saying you should consider: “If ten people tell you you’re drunk, go lie down.”
There’s also another truism I’ve learned in a lot of years of teaching and being taught–if the entire class doesn’t understand something, it’s probably because the teacher didn’t explain it very well. There is nothing worse than a teacher who, when asked a legitimate question, says, “I already explained that.”
I, for one, am no idiot, and I still don’t really understand 1.)Why God is exempt from the “everything must have a cause” rule, and 2.)why your proof would lead one to God, rather than, say, Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva, or Zeus, or the Invisible Pink Unicorn, or the Great Green Arkleseizure.
I really don’t know what you expected, since you came on here and claim to have single-handedly and conclusively done what generation after generation of philosophers have failed to do. I guess you thought we’d all say, “Gee whiz, I never thought about it like that. Praise Jesus!” If you were really interested in making your point, you would take more care to explain your position, instead of berating everyone for failing to understand your airtight logic.
Dr. J
“Seriously, baby, I can prescribe anything I want!” -Dr. Nick Riviera
Hmph. You nasal-creationists really chap my hide.
Pashley, you have now been provided two legitimate fora for your debate:
SingleDad by e-mail
or
Nen in the forum established.
(If you will look around GD, you will note that there are many threads that have multiple discussions in progress. The only thing you have to do in Nen’s forum is ignore any comments from the peanut gallery and ask that Nen do the same within that discussion. There is no need to act like a prima donna and demand the the chairs be set one way and the lectern be turned another. Just enter the discussion, address all remarks only to Nen and ask that Nen not quote or respondto any poster but you.)
Either accept one of the challenges, or please stop whining.
Tom~ ["…turtles all the way down."]
Pashley,
OK, I’ll admit it. I’m an idiot. Your explanation of why every event must have a cause soared over my head. However I admit my ignorance and am willing to learn.
Please then explain again why every event must have a cause. Don’t worry about going into great detail or using small words. I wont be offended, it’s the only way I’ll learn.
Although I’m an idiot I once heard a really smart guy (though not as smart as you, of course!) talk about something called the “fallacy of induction.” I’m not sure I remember it but I think it said something like if you see an event occur n number of times it does not neccessairily mean that it will occur the same way on the n plus 1th time. Seeing a thousand black ravens does not preclude a white (albino) raven. However I’m sure I’ve gotten it wrong.
It does seem to my idiotic self that the common sense notion of everything having a cause arises from our mundane (in both senses of the word) experience. However the origin of the universe is such an exotic phenomenon, I’m not sure our earthly common sense applies. But I know I’m wrong.
Also, I’ll give you quantum mechanics. Since I barely understand philosophy, I don’t want to get into a discussion of particles. Therefore I’ll let you take that off the table.
I eagerly await my enlightenment at your hands.
Perked Ears indicate curiosity - Know Your Cat
Just because YOU don’t accept the arguement A) doesn’t mean it is not logically valid, and B) just as many people have accepted it as not accepted it.
Can’t you do any better than that?
I’ve explained the uncaused causer argument. I’m not recapitulating. Get off your butt and read the post.
With all due respect, and while it’s true that mathematics has never been my strong point, I honestly don’t see how you can say that as many people on this thread have accepted your logic as have not accepted it, on this thread. That being the case, what’s the harm in trying to explain it one more time to those of us who aren’t harrassing you, aren’t gratuitously attacking you, but who simply haven’t understood your answer to the simple question that they all asked?
Okay. Even though I don’t know why it wouldn’t just be easier to answer the question again–using different language, since we all obviously didn’t get it the first time–can you at least point me to the relative position in the thread that you answered the questions posed by Satan? You know, middle of page one, fourth post down in page two, what?
I honestly want to understand where you’re coming from. Almost all of us do. But you’re not going to persuade us of your logic if you respond to all requests of clarification with the same blanket brush-off.
You did not explain it sufficiently. Get off your butt and explain it better.
pashley -
– bolding mine
I think these are the Uncaused Causer arguments you keep referencing (please let me know if I am incorrect in this assumption). Within the argument you have two standards of Existence, this is (I think) giving folks pause. There is no way for us to hang our hats on the Uncaused Causer’s existence, as it is outside our realm, and not testable. Is it so hard to understand folks not accepting the Christian Version of A Creator as valid?
Also your assumption that ‘not everything can be like this’ does not automatically follow. This (I think) gives folks pause, and makes it difficult to follow your logic.
Ok, everyone that is chewing my buttocks about “answer me! answer me!”…I’ll refer you to the “Goliath” folder where the stage is set.
And please, let him (NEN) and I do the discussing. I’m done with this folder, look for my argument over there, starting tomorrow…I’m headed home now…
Patrick Ashley
“For those who believe, no evidence is necessary; for those who don’t believe, no evidence is enough.” -Unknown
Pashley, you keep saying you addressed the uncaused causer on page one. Here is what I could find on the subject from you on page one - please add more if I’ve not found it all.
Pashley:
Pashley again:
Is this an accurate statement of your answer to the uncaused causer problem? I propose that you believe you have answered the problem sufficiently, but that you have not, and that is why people keep asking you about it. Merely saying “I’ve already answered it” and ignoring people who analyze your answer is admitting defeat. Let’s take a look at your above points:
[ul][li]Saying ‘it is logical’ as you have in subsequent posts does not justify the statement that everything must have been caused. When you say this, you are really saying ‘it is intuitive’, not ‘it is logical’, because no logical supporting argument has been presented.[/li][li]Even if everything must have been caused, I see no reason why there could not be multiple causes (I’ll get back to this later.)[/li][li]The word ‘everything’ causes you problem in your later arguments. Use sparingly.[/ul][/li]
[ul][li]Why not?[/li][li]Again the word ‘everything’ will trip you up.[/li][li]The statement is self-contradictory - You say “Beyond everything there is, there cannot be nothing.” This flies in the face of what the words “everything” and “nothing” mean. If there is something beyond ‘everything’, then ‘everything’ is not Everything.[/ul][/li]
People have pointed out that ‘cause’ means nothing outside of time, so it may not be absurd. It may only be absurd to you.
Even granting your above tenuous points, you make a fatal error:
You have just disputed your first premise that “Everything that does exist NECESSARILY must have been caused to exist.” This implies that anything that has not been caused to exist does not exist. ‘something’ which is uncaused must be part of ‘everything’, or this is some strange usage of the word ‘everything’ of which I was previously unaware. Really! I’m not playing word games.
Even if I were to grant you yet another flawed argument and say you are right that something must be uncaused that has caused everything else, you are liable for explaining the following problems:
[ul][li]What makes you think there is only one uncaused thing? Why not 2? 5? Avogadro’s Number?[/li][li]What makes you think you know the identity of the one uncaused thing? (i.e. couldn’t the uncaused thing be the universe itself?)[/ul][/li]
Shall I continue with your second post?
This is a fundamental misapprehension of ‘always’. Time is not defined outside the universe as we understand it, so it is nearly a tautology to say that the universe has always existed. What you can ask, and what cannot ever be answered by science barring some huge breakthrough, is what is outside the universe, if anything. This is what people are really asking when they ask about before the big-bang or after the possible big-crunch - outside the universe, not before or after.
Careful with that ‘everything’, pashley.
I have a hard time understanding what you are saying here. Care to elucidate? Since I can’t figure out what you mean by this, I’ll just give you the benefit of the doubt and assume it is ‘true’.
I think I understand this - you are saying we are dependent on air and water. That is not the same thing as saying that air and water are our cause. Air and water are not dependent on anything - unless you want to go back and say the oxygen was forged in a star. What is the point of this statement at all? I see no relevance to uncaused causers.
This is equivalent to your above “Beyond everything there is, there cannot be nothing.” The problems with it are the same, to wit:
[ul][li]Why not?[/li][li]This statement contradicts your very statements “Everything that exists is in space and time”, “everything that exists must have been caused to exist”. How on earth can you reconcile these statements to “But not everything can be like this”? You just said umpteen times that everything is like this![/ul][/li]
[quote]
So, there must be something that does not exist conditionally; something which exists in itself. Since all things in this world are material, this “something” must necessarily exist outside o
Scylla:
Yes. I’m still listening. This proves the universe self-created…???
HOW?
::
Doh! I just missed your post, pashley, I didn’t mean to ignore it. I still think you have not addressed the above issues, but I will patiently await the unfolding in Goliath.
CB:
It don’t prove.
It’s evidence that strongly supports the theory.
Care to address it?
“Don’t just stand there in Uffish thought!”
-The Caterpillar
David B:
You seem to be a proponent of this same ‘self-creation’ theory…
or do you just prefer to ignore how everything came into existence and jump right into the ‘primordial ooze-to-great-apes-to-humans dissertation???’
::
Scylla:
What theory are you referring to?
::
The theory of Santa Claus.
“Don’t just stand there in Uffish thought!”
-The Caterpillar
douglips:
You swerved into the truth pashley has been talking about. This is exactly the point.
Think about it.
::