#1 |
#2 |
#3 |
Paste this URL into an email or IM: |
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
|
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
|
Atheism Pseudo-Intellectual Crap
1. Atheism is just a load crap crapped out by human crap about a bunch a crap that no one with an IQ above that of a small rash gives a crap about.
2. Atheism makes all the sense in the world. Just ask my neighbor Bob. He knows everything.
Atheism is just a load of crap
Side Score: 130
|
Atheism knows everthing
Side Score: 158
|
|
-1
points
-1
points
-1
points
-1
points
-2
points
-2
points
-1
points
No. You obviously still don't understand a damn thing at all, do you? You're not talking about that which is impossible for human cognition, i.e., the resolution of mutually exclusive, diametrically opposed ideas residing within the same frame of reference; your talking about the multiverse theory of discrete cosmological domains, informationally divided. You are making a distinction between two or more discrete cosmological domains that might operate under a different set of physical laws and forces than our universe. A distinction! Not an inherent contradiction! The human mind cannot make mutually exclusive, diametrically opposed ideas true at the same time, in the same way within the same frame of reference. Period. For the sake of argument, if I were somehow thrust into the midst of one of these alternate domains with a different set of physical laws and forces would I suddenly be able to make mutually exclusive, diametrically opposed ideas true at the same time, in the same way within the same frame of reference? Of course not. I'd simply be learning a whole new set of rules: i.e., I’d still be fully aware of the fact that my old world and the new one are not the same thing, at the same time within the same realm of being, wouldn't I? If you’re the thoughtless rube who subtracted a point from my previous observation, given that you still can’t make two mutually exclusive ideas true at the same time, give it back and take one from yourself. Right? Huh? You’re damn skippy! Side: Atheism is just a load of crap
Your mind, maybe. Those who state things are impossible to know should just shut up and get out of the way of those who are actively trying to prove- esp. trolls like you. Multiple realities may well exist, and we are getting to the stage where it is possible to prove them. If you were in an alternate reality, that is because you are supposed to be there.You are the one who does not nderstand the full scope of eternity. Skippy? Rube? What the hell language are you speaking? Side: Atheism knows everthing
-2
points
I don't have to respect that because it's not true. There is ample rational evidence pointing to God's existence, while the bald assertion of atheism is not rational at all. To say that God doesn't exist is to deny the undeniable possibility. To run from that and claim that the limits of sensory perception or scientific inquiry are the limits of existence is irrational. So where's the logic? There is none. God does not allow the finite mind to rationally deny His possibility nor make the stupid argument that a spiritual being cannot exist because it’s not subject to empirical falsification. Really? You mean God isn’t an empirical entity? Gee. Say it isn’t so. What is this silly, political correctness, this phony blather about intellectual "tolerance"? It's all a bunch of artificial claptrap. If atheism is true, it is not true due to any rational argument concocted by a finite mind. A rational argument cannot be asserted on the behalf of atheism. Period. On the other hand, the assertion that God is or must be doesn’t violate the rules of logical at all. Oh, the irony. Zoom! Right over! So why are you a theist if you think your rational is no better than the atheistic claptrap that you formally believed to be logical? So you just believe any ol’ thing? Flip a coin? I happen to know first hand that the argument for God’s existence utterly demolishes all comers. You don’t seem to be aware of that. Your belief seems to be based on some pretty vague, wishy-washy blather. Why should I respect that? Side: Atheism knows everthing
3
points
It is. It's ok to believe in God, but if that means that you are going to criticize evryone that thinks differently, I have a problem with that. I also have a problem with Atheism creating a sense of helplessness, as well as Atheist-Controlled government, which contrary to popular belief, has without a doubt killed more people in the last century than any organized religion. In short, Atheism is an excuse for a lack of creativity. Side: Atheism is just a load of crap
I also have a problem with Atheism creating a sense of helplessness, as well as Atheist-Controlled government, which contrary to popular belief, has without a doubt killed more people in the last century than any organized religion. Blanket assertions that fly in the face of actual reality. I do not know what country you are from, but given the significant lack of any actual "atheist" countries I would tend to disagree with your point. There are secular states, but that is not the same as being atheistic; it is about a separation of religion and governance to prevent one set of beliefs being imposed upon the entire constituency against their will. Most, if not all, secular countries are still overwhelmingly religious - for instance, it is quite non-viable to run for or hold office as an openly professed atheist. As for atheism "without a doubt" killing more people than organized religion... consider me quite doubtful, and understand when I do not take you on your word. Usually, when presenting an argument (particularly one that is not commonly accepted) one presents evidence or reasoning to substantiate their claim. Anything less is lazy. As for atheism being non-creative, some of the most creative individuals in history have been atheists. Besides which, it takes a good deal more imaginative thinking to pursue actual answers instead of going along with a piece of fiction someone else wrote hundreds of years ago. Side: Atheism knows everthing
1
point
Exactly right atheism and for that matter religion are both rather irrational. It's simply a matter of choosing the one that makes the most seance to you. God cannot be rationally be disproven or for that matter proven. Regardless of which side your on its all a matter of faith. Side: Atheism is just a load of crap
0
points
0
points
The thing about this load of crap is that atheists pretend that science backs their claim when of course science does not and cannot deal with anything but empirical data. They're spouting pseudo-scientific claptrap. So push their crap back where it belongs, i.e., the realm of ontological reasoning and we quickly see why it never gets off the ground in the first place in the face of theology's ontologicals. Side: Atheism is just a load of crap
1
point
|
9
points
-1
points
2
points
By definition, atheism holds that God does not exist. While it is true that some respectable dictionaries hold that deffinition, many hold a more broad definition. Oxford English Dictionary: atheist: noun a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods: he is a committed atheist Dictionary.com: a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings. (It is worth noting that "disbelieve" is also identified by many dictionaries as either an act of believing the opposite or simply lacking belief.) American Heritage Dictionary- Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods. Never mind that the prefix "-a" can identify either a negative position or a lack of something. The best we can do is accept that there are two different schools of thought on what exactly atheism means, and with notable dictionaries supporting both, neither of us is likely to win that battle. But your assessment of "agnostic" is quite sophomoric. Agnosticism is an epistemological stance; it concerns knowledge; not belief, like the the atheist/theist spectrum. The two are not only NOTmutually exclusive, but they require each other to most accurately define a stance, and agnostics can be either theists or atheists. You are a gnostic theist: you believe in God and claim to have the knowledge to say that he definitely exists. I am agnostic atheist: I do not believe in God, but do not claim to have knowledge that he does not exist. I identified my stance early on, but its too rational for you, so you built a straw man. For someone who claims mastery of logical principles, you sure are unskilled in their usage. Side: Atheism knows everthing
0
points
The best we can do is accept that there are two different schools of thought on what exactly atheism means, and with notable dictionaries supporting both, neither of us is likely to win that battle. That's right. So all your other blather was moot, academic. I cannot possibly know whether you are an atheist in terms of its common, primary meaning or, as you put it, an "agnostic atheist", one who "do[es]not "believe in God, but do[es] not claim to have knowledge that he does not exist" unless you spell it out. Okay, so now it’s clear. But your assessment of "agnostic" is quite sophomoric. Agnosticism is an epistemological stance; it concerns knowledge; not belief, like the atheist/theist spectrum. My assessment is sophomoric, eh? You're outside your mind. All I said is that the agnostic, as opposed to the atheist proper, asserts that he doesn't know one way or the other about God's existence, you know, as in “an epistemological stance”! Merriam Webster: ": a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly: one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god" But the next statement of yours is even more incredible: “The two are not only NOTmutually exclusive, but they require each other to most accurately define a stance, and agnostics can be either theists or atheists.” No. Agnostics are not either theists or atheists, they’re agnostics, ya dingbat. They believe that ultimate realities are unknown or unknowable. Period. Taking the adjective form of the conceptual referent and sticking it in front of “atheist” does not overthrow the fact that these categorically distinct things are not categorically distinct. That’s called modification/clarification. Without such modification/clarification agnosticism is not understood to be any form of theism or atheism whatsoever! Shut up! To say that one is an agnostic with either theistic or atheistic leanings or whatever, which is what you’re apparently talking about, is not the same thing as saying that one is an agnostic. Mutual exclusivity has not a damn thing to do with the price of beans in China! The terms agnostic and atheist ARE NOT OBVIOUS EQUIVALENTS, YA FRIGGIN’ LUNATIC! Here, read my mind for a moment: ………………………………... I identified my stance early on, but its too rational for you, so you built a straw man. For someone who claims mastery of logical principles, you sure are unskilled in their usage. You didn’t do that here until just now. If you did it on some other thread, I didn’t catch it, so take your complaint and your silliness that agnosticism is necessarily equivalent to theism or atheism and shove ’em. Side: Atheism is just a load of crap
2
points
I cannot possibly know whether you are an atheist in terms of its common, primary meaning or, as you put it, an "agnostic atheist", one who "do[es]not "believe in God, but do[es] not claim to have knowledge that he does not exist" unless you spell it out. But....I did. Way back towards the beginning of this whole farce. MuckaMcCaw (in response to Rawlings1234): "To clarify, I am an agnostic atheist, not gnostic. I do not flatly deny that it is possible that God exists. I simply analyze the lines of evidence attempting to support this claim and have found them wanting." Given that is one of the only posts that you didn't respond to, I'll assume you missed it somehow. But there it is. Okay, so now it’s clear. Theoretically. Supposedly it was clear to you that I was not arguing about an origin from nothing, but you still attempted to sling that at me AFTER we cleared it up. Its hard to tell with you. I get the feeling you spend so much time arguing against strawmen that you aren't prepared to deal with an actual live debater who doesn't conform to your prefabricated argument system. ": a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly: one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god" The "broadly" section is essentially a different definition and counts as a layman's definition rather than an academic one. As we are discussing raw epistemology here, the layman's definition is as inappropriate as using the layman's definition of "theory" to attack the scientific theory of evolution. They believe that ultimate realities are unknown or unknowable. And knowledge and belief are not the same thing. I am agnostic because I do not believe that I have been presented with indisputable knowledge either way and atheist because I do not believe in God. The atheists you seem to prefer debating believe they do have such knowledge, but I have qualms with their stance as well, as I see it just as unsupportable as yours. Meanwhile, some theists do not claim to know for sure if God it exists, but choose to believe anyway. These are agnostic theists, and you will find them at church and on this site from time to time. That’s called modification/clarification. Without such modification/clarification agnosticism is not understood to be any form of theism or atheism whatsoever! See, while you've been sitting on your ivory castle basking in hate, the atheism movement has progressed and evolved and taken the more rational stance. These days, agnostic atheists likely make up the majority of atheists, certainly on this site, as well as many atheist authors. The world has passed you by and your still stuck with 19th century definitions. Mutual exclusivity has not a damn thing to do with the price of beans in China! Since you are arguing one cannot be both, it clearly does. If you did it on some other thread, I didn’t catch it, so take your complaint and your silliness that agnosticism is necessarily equivalent to theism or atheism I didn't say they were equivalent, I said they were intertwined and necessary for proper identification of one's actual stance. Side: Atheism knows everthing
0
points
The only sense in which a theist or an atheist might be an agnostic would be in a purely epistemological sense in regard to ultimate potentialities. Don’t give me this 19th-Century crap. Try, since time immemorial. There's nothing profound or new about that. With regard to the various theories of quantum mechanics beyond the boundary of the singularity of general relativity, for example, I’m an agnostic. I find it all very fascinating, but for the most part, we are talking about the unfalsifiable, albeit, rationally and mathematically feasible potentialities of quantum physics’ calculi. But you wouldn’t know that about this theist without that declaration, now would you? You’re talking about conceptual compounds inextricably bound to modification or predication. You are making categorical and grammatical claims that are flat-out wrong! Categorical logic 101. Neither the rational concepts of atheism, theism or agnosticism, nor their grammatical referents are obvious equivalents. Period. And you most certainly did imply that, for on the very face of them, sans any further clarification in terms of modification or predication, they most certainly are mutually exclusive relative to their primary denotations. I’m not a mind reader, and this nonsense about me allegedly “sitting on [my] ivory castle basking in hate [LOL!],” while “the atheism movement has progressed and evolved and taken the more rational stance” is just a smile and a shoeshine attempting to cover what was in fact a poorly expressed idea on your part, riddled with categorical and grammatical error. Further, I’m engaged with more than just a few atheists right now who are trying to defend the very irrationality to which you allude. Clarification is required! An agnostic atheist is not necessarily the same animal as an atheist at all. The "broadly" section is essentially a different definition and counts as a layman's definition rather than an academic one. That’s right. Beyond the fundamentals of simple referents, clarification is always required, isn’t it? In the absence of it, it is not unreasonable to assume the primary denotations of simple referents, is it? Formal academic definitions inevitably entail complex concepts (compound abstractions), don’t they? They are not self-evident in the absence of clarification, are they? Indeed, quite often, a definition of terms in the Socratic tradition is required, isn’t it? Sensible people don’t just pop off and start calling the understanding of others sophomoric in the absence of such clarification as if these others could read their friggin’ minds, do they? I didn't say they were equivalent, I said they were intertwined and necessary for proper identification of one's actual stance. That’s what you meant. I know. But in trying to make me out to be someone who is not aware of the epistemological essence of agnosticism (as if any sensible person would believe that given the obvious caliber and the education behind the pieces authored by me on my blog!), you wrote “agnostics can be either theists or atheists.” That’s a rather confused, poorly expressed idea with regard to the one you were after, isn’t it? Instead, one might be an agnostic who leans toward theism or atheism, or one might be a theist or an atheist with an agnostic attitude toward certain conjectures regarding ultimate realities. Saying that “agnostics can be either theists or atheists” is not only nonsensical but blurs the distinction between “belief” and “knowledge.” It is you, not I, who confounded this distinction. I never once said anything about belief or disbelief with regard to agnosticism, as you errantly implied, whatsoever! Nor would I precisely because I do know what the essence of agnosticism is, isn’t that right, Mr. Agnostics-Can-Be-Either-Theists-Or- See how dishonestly can get one all tangled up in error. Oh what tangle webs we weave. . . . Go ahead and delude yourself, but I assure you that my mind is quite actively alive and versatile. It’s got plenty of spring and elasticity, and it doesn’t tolerate the sort of categorical and grammatical errors blathered by you. Yeah, that’s right, you attempted to impugn my intelligence by assigning strawman to me! Instead, you got yourself all tangled up in obvious categorical and grammatical errors, didn’t ya? I don’t knowingly argue against strawmen, strawman. You’re full of straw. Bottom line: I missed your earlier clarification. That is all that happened here. The rest of your natterings were the silly categorical and grammatical errors of one trying to dishonestly attribute stupidities to another that were never thought, never uttered, never imagined, when all you had to say was: “Hey, you missed my earlier clarification; I’m an atheist with agnostic leanings in regard to ultimate origin.” Get this through your thick skull: there’s absolutely nothing profound, amazing or new about that. It’s a simple matter. In my sleep, with both sides of my brain tied behind my back. Move on, and I’ll make no more mention of this foolishness of yours. Side: Atheism is just a load of crap
1
point
A little bit back we established that there are multiple schools of thought regarding the definition of atheism. Later you started using the term "hard atheism", implying that there is also a "soft" atheism. The hard represents claiming there is no God. So what is the soft, then? The lack of belief. Why would one fail to believe in God, if they did not claim there is none? Because they don't have the knowledge. They see it as unknown. They are agnostic. But also atheist, albeit "soft" about it. It is synonymous with agnostic atheism. Why has it risen in popularity over the past century or so. A) This mindset has always been there. But atheists were long in the minority, and in many times and places were threatened with punishment if they stood out. Atheist literature was around, but it wasn't widely distributed. THEISTS controlled the presses. They made the rules. They had the voice that many heard. And it was simply easier for them to focus on those pernicious hard atheists, for they were more frightening. If they had power, the ones who were gnostic about would lead to the more nightmarish reality that they imagined. Its the same reason why many atheists broadly stroke most theists as fundamentalists. They are far more dangerous than moderate Christians. B) When the scientific method became nearly universal, and accepted by virtually all atheists, it simultaneously ruled out absolute proof for against God (from a scientific perspective at least). This played a huge role in helping atheism mature and become more rational. Rarely has any theology been willing to "man up" and accept its flaws. C) The term "agnostic" became more popular as a place-holder for some middle ground, but atheists were less likely to find it sufficient for that purpose than theists were. We knew it spoke only of epistemology and not belief. It also started carrying this connotation of some indecisive, weak-minded stance. But many agnostic atheists are just as opposed to religion and the religious as gnostic theists. We live in almost the exact same way, except we are wise enough to admit we don't have indisputable evidence against God. Just a whole lot of reasons to not believe. We are still potentially aggressive about it. D) Frankly, its less insulting than "weak", "soft" or "negative". Not a good reason, but you know how vain people on both side of the religious fence can be. And you most certainly did imply that, for on the very face of them, sans any further clarification in terms of modification or predication, they most certainly are mutually exclusive relative to their primary denotations. One is intrinsically tied to belief. The other to knowledge. These are two independent concepts. By adding them together you get a more accurate an important series of distinctions. You can't use the same arguments against an agnostic atheist that you can against a gnostic one anymore than I can use the same arguments against an agnostic theist that I use against a gnostic one. Since you don't feel like you need faith, I attack your reasoning. But I have debated with theists who insist that they rely entirely on faith, so its best to point out the lunacy of faith to them. An agnostic atheist is not necessarily the same animal as an atheist at all. Finally! We're getting somewhere! Much like house cats and tigers have a whole lot in common, but you'd most likely be inclined to treat them differently. But they are all cats, just as we are all atheists. Sensible people don’t just pop off and start calling the understanding of others sophomoric in the absence of such clarification as if these others could read their friggin’ minds, do they? You start treating any of your opponents with respect and you might get some from me. It will be faked, of course, but I'm actually a pretty congenial debater when dealing with mature opponents. Instead, one might be an agnostic who leans toward theism or atheism, or one might be a theist or an atheist with an agnostic attitude toward certain conjectures regarding ultimate realities. Tomato, tomahto. Verbose as I am, I don't ALWAYS use more words than necessary. Saying that “agnostics can be either theists or atheists” is not only nonsensical but blurs the distinction between “belief” and “knowledge.” It is you, not I, who confounded this distinction. Not at all. I am clearly differentiating between four distinct categories. There is a very good reason why I differentiate between agnostic atheists and those other guys. I don’t knowingly argue against strawmen Oh, I know you don't do it knowingly. That's what makes it all the more funny/sad. Keep the entertainment coming :) Side: Atheism knows everthing
-1
points
-2
points
The Hugh Hewitt Show Hewitt: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the latest addition of The Hugh Hewitt Show. Today’s guest is MuckaMcCaw. Welcome to the show, Mr. McCaw. MuckaMcCaw: Thank you. Call me Mucka. Hugh: Alright, Mucka. So you fancy yourself an agnostic atheist? Mucka: That’s right! Hugh: So you concede the fact that the possibility of God’s existence can’t be rationally denied? Mucka: That’s right! Ya see, Hugh, the problem with hard atheism is that one really can’t prove God doesn’t exist. Hugh: Right. And the atheist necessarily acknowledges the undeniable possibility of God’s existence in the very act of denying there be any substance behind . . . well, behind the undeniable possibility, the construct of divinity? Mucka: That’s right! It’s sort of a catch 22. . . . You really can’t argue against the possibility. It’s a self-negating argument. Irrational. It can’t be done. Hugh: The construct objectively exists in and of itself . . . Mucka: That’s right. In a manner of speaking with regard to human consciousness . . . Hugh: It imposes itself on our minds without our willing that it do so, right? Mucka: That’s right! Hugh: Why is that? Mucka: Well, I suppose it goes to the problem of origin. You know, something from nothing. It doesn’t jive. Hugh: Right. And there’s two irreducible alternatives: inanimateness and/or consciousness? Mucka: That’s right! Hugh: And there’s the principle of causality and the problem of infinite regression . . . Mucka: That’s wrong! Hugh: Uh . . . what’s wrong? Mucka: That’s right! Hugh: How’s that? Mucka: That’s right. The principle of causality and the problem of infinite regression . . . well, they’ve got nothing’ to do with the problem of origin, ya know, something out of nothing’. That’s wrong! Hugh: How’s that? Mucka: Rottweilers! Big honkin’ Rottweilers chewing on my brain! Hugh: Rottweilers? Mucka: Bit honkin’ German Rottweilers! Hugh: Uh . . . right. But the whole point of the ad absurdum, out of nothing, nothing comes, is that something must have always existed as a means of causality . . . Mucka: Nah. They’re not related, and the other alternative doesn‘t have to be God, could be something else. Woof Hugh: Uh . . . since when? Mucka: Rottweilers! Hugh: How’s that? Mucka: That’s right! Ya got something uncaused. There’s no inescapable principle of causality. Hugh: Uh . . . no, Mucka . . . Mucka: Call me, Mr. Woof. Hugh: . . . you’re missing the whole point. Mucka: Point! Good, boy. Now sit. Rollover. Hugh: Mucka: Fetch . . . Hugh: Snap out of it! Mucka: Snap the friggin’ leash! Woof Hugh: Mucka! Mucka: That’s right, Hugh. Causality is like war. Who needs it? Hugh: So, it is reasonable to hold that something can arise from nothing? Mucka: That’s right! Uh . . . what? Hugh: You just said that causality is like war . . . Mucka: That’s right! Who needs it? Hugh: Let’s move on. . . . Mucka: Woof Hugh: Naturally, because the objectively universal construct of divinity would be the greatest conceivable entity it wouldn’t be subject to infinite regression . . . Mucka: The greatest conceivable entity would be subjective. Hugh: How’s that? Mucka: That’s right! Subjective. Hugh: How could the objectively universal construct of divinity be subjective? Mucka: Woof Hugh: If it were subjective, it could be rationally denied . . . Mucka: Look here, ya theist bastard. Ya got all kinds of friggin’ gods. See? Hugh: Then what’s this potentiality that cannot be rationally denied? Mucka: What are ya, stupid or something? Problem of origin! Hugh: And the objectively universal construct of divinity would necessarily be immaterial, right? Mucka: Rottweilers, Hugh! I got friggin’ Rottweilers chewing on my brain! Hugh: A spiritual entity? Mucka: Snap the leash! Hugh: Indivisible, immutable, right? Mucka: There’s no friggin’ divinity! Subjective! Woof I got bite marks on my brain! Hugh: Mucka! Mucka: So, ya want some friggin’ objective divinity, eh? Is that it, ya theist bastard? Ya want some dog food? barf There ya go. There’s your friggin’ universal right there, my soiled shirt. Woof Hugh: Mucka, you’re not making any sense here. You concede that the possibility of God’s existence cannot be rationally denied; hence, the construct has to be of an objectively universal nature. What is it? Mucka: I just peed my pants. I got Rottweilers chewing on my brain, and I just peed my pants. Woof Hugh: Look here, the divinity you have in mind is eternally self-subsistent; hence, transcendent, spiritual, not materially contingent! Mucka: Big Bang! Boom, chaka-lacka boom! The Big Bang killed Him! It was a friggin’ disaster, I tell ya! Woof Hugh: So His existence can be rationally denied? Mucka: That’s right! Uh . . . what? Look here, ya theist bastard, the possibility of God’s existence can’t be rationally denied! Problem of origin! Hugh: But you just said . . . Mucka: That’s right! God’s dead! Big Bang! Boom, chaka-lacka boom! Hugh: And atheism? Mucka: Agnosticism, atheism, theism: they’re all intertwined! An agnostic can be a theist or an atheist. Woof Four divisions! Rottweilers! Big honkin’ German Rottweilers chewing on my brain. Hugh: Security! Mucka: I peed my pants! Problem of origin! Bite marks on my brain! God’s dead! Big Bang! Boom, chaka-lacka boom! Hugh: Security! Mucka: Woof Subjective! Sit! Rollover! Beg! Ya friggin’ theist bastard! Snap the leash! Squirrel! My shoes are full of pee! Rottweilers! Big honkin’ Rottweilers! . . . Side: Atheism is just a load of crap
1
point
Oh goody, its the Hugh Hewitt vs. Strawman show! MuckaMcCaw: Thank you. Call me Mucka. Hugh: Alright, Mucka. So you fancy yourself an agnostic atheist? Mucka: That’s right! Hugh: So you concede the fact that the possibility of God’s existence can’t be rationally denied? Mucka: Not exactly. I concede only that it cannot be conclusively denied, at least not that I've seen. Hugh: Right. And the atheist necessarily acknowledges the undeniable possibility of God’s existence in the very act of denying there be any substance behind . . . well, behind the undeniable possibility, the construct of divinity? Mucka: No. Just that until it can be completely and definitively ruled out, it would be dishonest to say that it has. Interestingly, the "hard theist" stance has the exact same problem! Therefore, we probably won't ever know for absolute certainty. However, there is a weakness inherent in all arguments I've encountered postulating God's necessity...and that is: God is never shown as anything more than a possibility, and not even a particularly likely one. The claimant repeatedly fails to recognize that there are always other, simpler, more potentially testable alternatives. Hugh: The construct objectively exists in and of itself . . . Mucka: No. Hugh: It imposes itself on our minds without our willing that it do so, right? Mucka: The only way to know that is to isolate a number of children from society, make sure they are all completely cut off from the idea of God, and see if every one of them comes up with the construct. Given that different societies have different notions of divinity, it seems unlikely that that would prove to be the case. Hugh: Why is that? Mucka: The construct is not universal amongst belief systems even in a world where everybody has been exposed to some concept of God. In a scenario where a number of individuals are raised as blank slates, it seems quite reasonable that any number of different notions may arise. And it is possible that at least a few will never even conceive of any form of divinity whatsoever, particularly the pragmatic ones who are chiefly concerned with what they can definitively prove and work with. Hugh: Right. And there’s two irreducible alternatives: inanimateness and/or consciousness? Mucka: Or both, but more or less. Hugh: And there’s the principle of causality and the problem of infinite regression . . . Mucka: More or less. Of course that is limited to human perception, but given that is what we have to work with, we do our best. Hugh: Uh . . . what’s wrong? Mucka: Nothing. I'm feeling quite well ,thank you! Hugh: How’s that? Mucka: I said: "NOTHING, I'M FEELING QUITE WELL, THANK YOU! Hugh: How’s that? Mucka: Hmmm. Spontaneous deafness? Should I stop smiling? Hugh: Rottweilers? Mucka: I said "stop smi....on the other hand, perhaps I should just smile and nod. Hugh: Uh . . . right. But the whole point of the ad absurdum, out of nothing, nothing comes, is that something must have always existed as a means of causality . . . Mucka: Most likely. The nature of that "something" is difficult to determine at this point. Hugh: Uh . . . since when? Mucka: Presumably forever. Unless a watertight explanation has been offered and has since been lost to the ages. Or I simply haven't heard it yet, although one would think that such an argument would be very well known. Hugh: How’s that? Mucka: One would presume that if the theist camp had determined something about God that was completely uncounterable, they would have made rather a big deal about it instead of relying on problematic arguments that have been repeatedly refuted, even by other theists. Hugh: Uh . . . no, Mucka . . . Mucka: Yes? Hugh: . . . you’re missing the whole point. Mucka: Ummm...okay? Care to elaborate? Hugh: Mucka: Apparently not... Hugh: Snap out of it! Mucka: What, rationality? Why?!? Hugh: Mucka! Mucka: I....I think Hugh is having a stroke...or something....call 911! Hugh: So, it is reasonable to hold that something can arise from nothing? Mucka: I...I'm not sure if it is moral to continue this discussion with you having health issues...but, no. It is not reasonable. Nor is it reasonable to make assumptions about such things as intent, omnipotence, etc., without a solid line of reasoning. Now are you sure you are okay? Hugh: You just said that causality is like war . . . Mucka: No I didn't. First you couldn't hear me, now you are hearing things I didn't say. I wish I could say this is the first time this has happened in conversations with you, but... Hugh: Let’s move on. . . . Mucka: Oh...kay... Hugh: Naturally, because the objectively universal construct of divinity would be the greatest conceivable entity it wouldn’t be subject to infinite regression . . . Mucka: We still never established that it is either objective or universal. In fact, the presence of numerous competing religions suggests quite strongly that it is neither. Anyway, let us not move goal posts, here. We were talking about the first cause, not the "greatest conceivable entity". Those are not inherently synonymous. Hugh: How’s that? Mucka: Is owning your business the same thing as ruling the world? Hugh: How could the objectively universal construct of divinity be subjective? Mucka: If such a thing existed, it would be objective. But there does not appear to be such a thing. Hugh: If it were subjective, it could be rationally denied . . . Mucka: Yes. Just like I did. Now, weren't we supposed to be analyzing the first cause? Hugh: Then what’s this potentiality that cannot be rationally denied? Mucka: ....that something was uncaused. That's all we've manged to establish so far. If you would stay on track... Hugh: And the objectively universal construct of divinity would necessarily be immaterial, right? Mucka: Sigh. I can see you have a hard time following direct lines of logic. Fine. This onjectively universal construct, which appears to actually be neither objective or universal, would most likely not be immaterial if it actually existed. And if it IS immaterial, its existence is going to be rather hard to verify without necessity. Hugh: A spiritual entity? Mucka: We're just moving farther away from verification. What does spiritual entity even mean, really? Hugh: Indivisible, immutable, right? Mucka: Assigning qualities at random? Hugh: Mucka! Mucka:Yes? Hugh: Mucka, you’re not making any sense here. You concede that the possibility of God’s existence cannot be rationally denied; hence, the construct has to be of an objectively universal nature. What is it? Mucka: Again, I say that we cannot conclusively rule out God. We also cannot conclusively prove his existence. And if he does exist, we cannot establish specifics to him, your construct is just one imaginable possibility, and, frankly, sounds like every bit as ludicrous (or at least unsupportable) as Zeus, Ra, Thor.... Hugh: Look here, the divinity you have in mind is eternally self-subsistent; hence, transcendent, spiritual, not materially contingent! Mucka: Please start listening to what I'm saying. I don't have a divinity in mind. I simply cannot 100% rule one out. If you can drum up requisite characteristics we can discuss them. We discussed that there was most likely a first cause. I never conceded that it was divinity, and even if I did, I certainly would not argue that it would have to be eternally self-subsitent. I don't know if you caught on yet, but I don not believe in God. Hugh: So His existence can be rationally denied? Mucka: Not conclusively. But nor can it be rationally supported. And that is the important part. If you make a claim, you should be able to support it. If you have a belief, you should have a reason. Since neither have been presented to me, I do not believe. Hugh: But you just said . . . Mucka: From the beginning I have stated that God can not be conclusively disproven. YOU have said that he cannot be rationally denied. This really would be a lot smoother if you responded to my words and not your own. Hugh: And atheism? Mucka: Is a lack of belief in Gods. Which has been my stance from day 1. Hugh: Security! Mucka: Are you being accosted? Do you require assistance? Hugh: Security! Mucka: That's it...I'm calling 911 now. Side: Atheism knows everthing
-2
points
The Hugh Hewitt Show Live Hugh: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome back to another edition of the Hugh Hewitt Show! I’ve got the one and only Mucka Rottweiler McCaw back with us again. So, how ya feelin’, Mucka? Mucka: Much better, thank you, a little shock therapy did the trick. Hugh: I read the piece in See What They’re Saying Now Magazine the other day, and I thought I’d get ya back here for a follow up. Mucka: That’s great. Thanks. Hugh: So you don’t actually concede the fact that the possibility of God’s existence can’t be rationally denied? Mucka: Not exactly. I concede only that it cannot be conclusively denied, at least not that I've seen. Hugh: So you’re splittin’ hairs? Mucka: Say what? Hugh: Never mind. You’re semantic charade is obvious. Mucka: Uh . . . Hugh: So the atheist doesn’t necessarily acknowledge the undeniable possibility of God’s existence in the very act of denying there be any substance behind . . . well, behind the undeniable possibility, the construct of divinity? Mucka: No. Just that until it can be completely and definitively ruled out, it would be dishonest to say that it has . . . Hugh: I’m sorry. Until what can be completely ruled out? Mucka: Uh . . . it. Hugh: It? Mucka: The possibility of God’s existence. Hugh: What God? Mucka: The one that can’t be ruled out. Hugh: And which one would that be precisely? Mucka: Hugh: Mucka? Mucka: Rottweilers! Hugh: Uh . . . right. Security, stand by. Precisely what idea of God are you saying cannot be ruled out or is not necessarily acknowledged by the atheist in his very denial? Surely you know what it is you’d have to be ruling out. Surely you don’t make it a habit of making claims about things you haven’t defined or don’t understand. Mucka: Uh . . . Gummy Bears? Hugh: You’re just guessing? Mucka: Grape-flavored Gummy Bears? Hugh: Higher. Mucka: Florescent lights? Hugh: Higher. Mucka: You? Hugh: Now, Mucka, how could a finite creature like me be the Creator? Mucka: Nervous, deranged laughter Yeah, you’re right. Uh . . . me? Hugh: Same problem, only worse. Mucka: Rottweilers! Hugh: Look here, Mucka, anyone with an IQ above that of the smudge on your glasses can see that you’re a lying toad. So, first, shut up. Second, shut up again. Mucka: Shut up? Hugh: That’s right! Mucka: But . . . Hugh: Shut . . . Mucka: . . . I . . . Hugh: . . . your . . . Mucka: . . . think . . . Hugh: . . . piehole. Mucka: Hugh: Good. Now, let's move on. . . . I see that you make the incredible statement that the positive assertion that God must be “has the exact same logical problem” as that of hard atheism. Mucka: Problem? Hugh: Yeah. That’s what I thought. You unwittingly shifted from ontological analytics to teleological synthetics and knew the silly-ass rubes throwin’ ya bones wouldn’t notice, eh? Mucka: But . . . uh . . . I . . . I mean . . . Hugh: Stop sputtering. They’re rubes, and you’re a lying toad, aren’t you? Mucka: Rottweilers! Hugh: Of course, God’s existence can be readily asserted without violating the rules of logic, because it does not entail the denial of anything’s existence or a denial of any undeniable possibility whatsoever, but merely asserts the existence of the irreducible primary of consciousness in terms of origin, isn’t that right, Mucka? Mucka: Hugh: Earth to Mucka, isn’t that right? Mucka: Rottweilers chewing on my brain! Goo goo g’joob! Hugh: You also claim, mind you, in the face of the fact that hard atheism cannot be rationally asserted at all, that the universally self-evident, rational and mathematical ontologicals of being are not proofs of God’s existence. Mucka: That’s right! Hugh: That “God is never shown as anything more than a possibility”? Mucka: Ya damn skippy, ya theist bastard! Got ya there. Ya got inanimateness and consciousness. See? There’s your friggin’ alternatives of origin right there, ya theist bastard! Hugh: Indeed. That’s right. You also claim that the theist “repeatedly fails to recognize that there are always other, simpler, more potentially testable alternatives.” I believe those were your very words, isn’t that right, Mucka? Mucka: That’s right! Uh . . . did you just say indeed? Hugh: Indeed. Mucka: How’s that? Hugh: Indeed. It was this theist who pointed out to you that the irreducible primary of ontological being relative to the problem of origin includes the uh . . . simplistic alternative of inanimate materiality, isn’t that right, Mucka? Mucka: Uh . . . Hugh: Isn’t that right? Mucka: But . . . I . . . uh . . . I mean . . . Hugh: Isn’t that right? Mucka: Uh . . . well . . . Hugh: You’re sputtering again, Mucka. Mucka: Uh . . . Hugh: You already agreed with this theist on that point, didn’t you, Mucka. Mucka: But . . . Hugh: Mucka, you’re a lying toad and a damn fool, aren’t you? Mucka: Uh . . . what just happened here? Hugh: Are you peeing your pants again, Mucka? Mucka: Oh hell . . . Hugh: Those shoes look expensive. Are they new? Mucka: Rottweilers chewing on my brain! Hugh: You sort of got lost when you claimed that the irreducible primary of consciousness relative to the problem of origin does not objectively exist in and of itself, didn’t you, Mucka? That’s the other alternative of the inescapable problem of origin. Mucka. My shoes are ruined. Hugh: The construct of divinity does impose itself on our minds without our willing that it do so, isn’t that right, Mucka? It’s the very same construct that cannot “be completely and definitively ruled out” at this time, as you put it, isn’t that right, Mucka? Mucka: I peed my pants. Hugh. Yes, indeed, Mucka, you peed your pants again. . . . And your shoes, they look expensive. Are they suede? Mucka: Two-hundred bucks down the toilet. Hugh: Almost literally so, Mucka. Mucka: Rottweilers! Big honkin’ Rottweilers! Hugh: Poor, Mucka, everybody knows Locke’s objection to Cartesian rationalism doesn’t hold up, that Hume is the true master of empiricism. Mucka: Huh? Hugh: Oh my! You didn’t know! How adorable. Still playing with the thought experiments of children and cultures and the conflation of the categorical distinction between theological abstracts and the rational-mathematical universals of ontology’s irreducible primaries? Still on that Lockean magical mystery detour, eh? Mucka: Gummy Bears? Hugh: I’m sorry, Mucka, no Gummy Bears for you. We’re well into the Kantian era of the analytic-synthetic dichotomy of the Cartesian-Humean synthesis, the philosophical foundation of quantum physics no less! Of course, Augustine, Aquinas and Calvin, the greatest theologians of all time, had already worked out the irreducible primaries as extrapolated from the Bible. Had Locke paid more attention to them, he could have avoided his error and not been superseded by Berkeley and then by Hume. Mucka: M&Ms;? Hugh: Sorry, Boo-boo, no M&Ms;for you either, I’m afraid, for the construct of divinity is not a subjective abstract at the philosophical-mathematical level of apprehension at all, but an extrapolation of the objectively self-evident dichotomies of ontology’s irreducible primaries, and, sadly, “the pragmatic ones who are chiefly concerned with what they can definitively prove and work with” in your imaginary isolation would be the class retards, those apparently failing to grasp the inescapable implications of finiteness-infiniteness, divisibility-indivisibility, mutability-immutability, materiality-immateriality. . . . Mucka: I just made a boom-boom in my pants. Hugh: Poor, Mucka, you’re fallin’ apart at the seams, this whole farce of yours . . . Mucka: It’s those friggin’ Rottweilers chewing on my brain! Woof Hugh: Indeed, it’s the rational-mathematical imperatives of human cognition chewing on your brain, Mucka! Mucka: Woof Hugh: If your rather dull-witted and unimaginative tards of the static, tabula rasa paradigm had kept us stuck on sensory-perception stupid, we wouldn’t have had the Berkelean principle of motion, the philosophical precursor of general relativity. Mucka: I’m a know-nothing’ twit with Rottweilers chewing on my brain. Hugh: Are you an Objectivist loon, to boot, Mucka? Mucka: Woof Hugh: Ya sure talk like one. Mucka: Bite marks on my brain! Hugh: So it’s rational to argue that the greatest conceivable expression of cognition’s irreducible primaries of transcendence could be trumped? Mucka: Woof Hugh: By what exactly? Mucka: Finkledink! Hugh: Like Dawkins, with his risible line of teleological argumentation in The Blind Watchmaker, you’re a philosophical-theological illiterate, aren’t ya, Mucka? Mucka: I’m a damn fool! Hugh: Yeah, a damn buffoon of the new atheism arguing against irrelevant strawmen discarded centuries ago. Mucka: Just one Gummy Bear? Hugh: You unimaginative, closed-minded, bigoted ignoramus! The quantum vacuum is empty space! Mucka: Huh? Hugh: The whole point of Hawking, Krauss et al.’s semantic hijinks of trying to make the gravitational energy of the vacuum of quantum physics out to be a metaphysical/existential nothingness just flies right over your head, doesn’t it, Mucka? Mucka: Huh? Hugh: They’re trying to negate the necessity of divinity by appealing to the energy of an existent comprised of intangible mass. For all we know its an interdimensional immateriality of transcendental proportions, ya friggin’ dolt! Mucka: Huh? Hugh: We’re venturing beyond the space-time continuum of our material senses into a realm of being that lies beyond the singularity. We can only quantify its effects from this side of things. It’s not our friggin’ senses with which we’re engaging it. We’re engaging it with the immaterial imperatives of cognition! Mucka: Huh? Hugh: You nonsensically asserted that that which would be an ontological immateriality would “likely not be immaterial if it actually existed”! Mucka: Huh? Hugh: “And if it IS immaterial, its existence is going to be rather hard to verify without necessity”! Mucka: Huh? Hugh: The ultimate essence of neither a transcendent immateriality nor the materiality of an intangible mass is subject to direct scientific affirmation or falsification. Its all sheer mathematics! Mucka: I just peed my pants again. Hugh: Someone wash this puddle of urine and boom booms down and toss it a bag of Gummy Bears. Side: Atheism is just a load of crap
-2
points
The Hugh Hewitt Show Live Hugh: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome back to another edition of the Hugh Hewitt Show! I’ve got the one and only Mucka Rottweiler McCaw back with us again. So, how ya feelin’, Mucka? Mucka: Much better, thank you, a little shock therapy did the trick. Hugh: I read the piece in See What They’re Saying Now Magazine the other day, and I thought I’d get ya back here for a follow up. Mucka: That’s great. Thanks. Hugh: So you don’t actually concede the fact that the possibility of God’s existence can’t be rationally denied? Mucka: Not exactly. I concede only that it cannot be conclusively denied, at least not that I've seen. Hugh: So you’re splittin’ hairs? Mucka: Say what? Hugh: Never mind. You’re semantic charade is obvious. Mucka: Uh . . . Hugh: So the atheist doesn’t necessarily acknowledge the undeniable possibility of God’s existence in the very act of denying there be any substance behind . . . well, behind the undeniable possibility, the construct of divinity? Mucka: No. Just that until it can be completely and definitively ruled out, it would be dishonest to say that it has . . . Hugh: I’m sorry. Until what can be completely ruled out? Mucka: Uh . . . it. Hugh: It? Mucka: The possibility of God’s existence. Hugh: What God? Mucka: The one that can’t be ruled out. Hugh: And which one would that be precisely? Mucka: Hugh: Mucka? Mucka: Rottweilers! Hugh: Uh . . . right. Security, stand by. Precisely what idea of God are you saying cannot be ruled out or is not necessarily acknowledged by the atheist in his very denial? Surely you know what it is you’d have to be ruling out. Surely you don’t make it a habit of making claims about things you haven’t defined or don’t understand. Mucka: Uh . . . Gummy Bears? Hugh: You’re guessing? Mucka: Grape-flavored Gummy Bears? Hugh: Higher. Mucka: Florescent lights? Hugh: Higher. Mucka: You? Hugh: Now, Mucka, how could a finite creature like me be the Creator? Mucka: Nervous, deranged laughter Yeah, you’re right. Uh . . . me? Hugh: Same problem, only worse. Mucka: Rottweilers! Hugh: Look here, Mucka, anyone with an IQ above that of the smudge on your glasses can see that you’re a lying toad. So, first, shut up. Second, shut up again. Mucka: Shut up? Hugh: That’s right! Mucka: But . . . Hugh: Shut . . . Mucka: . . . I . . . Hugh: . . . your . . . Mucka: . . . think . . . Hugh: . . . piehole. Mucka: Hugh: Good. Now, let's move on. . . . I see that you make the incredible statement that the positive assertion that God must be “has the exact same logical problem” as that of hard atheism. Mucka: Problem? Hugh: Yeah. That’s what I thought. You unwittingly shifted from ontological analytics to teleological synthetics and knew the silly-ass rubes throwin’ ya bones wouldn’t notice, eh? Mucka: But . . . uh . . . I . . . I mean . . . Hugh: Stop sputtering. They’re rubes, and you’re a lying toad, aren’t you? Mucka: Rottweilers! Hugh: Of course, God’s existence can be readily asserted without violating the rules of logic, because it does not entail the denial of anything’s existence or a denial of any undeniable possibility whatsoever, but merely asserts the existence of the irreducible primary of consciousness in terms of origin, isn’t that right, Mucka? Mucka: Hugh: Earth to Mucka, isn’t that right? Mucka: Rottweilers chewing on my brain! Goo goo g’joob! Hugh: You also claim, mind you, in the face of the fact that hard atheism cannot be rationally asserted at all, that the universally self-evident, rational and mathematical ontologicals of being are not proofs of God’s existence. Mucka: That’s right! Hugh: That “God is never shown as anything more than a possibility”? Mucka: Ya damn skippy, ya theist bastard! Got ya there. Ya got inanimateness and consciousness. See? There’s your friggin’ alternatives of origin right there, ya theist bastard! Hugh: Indeed. That’s right. You also claim that the theist “repeatedly fails to recognize that there are always other, simpler, more potentially testable alternatives.” I believe those were your very words, isn’t that right, Mucka? Mucka: That’s right! Uh . . . did you just say indeed? Hugh: Indeed. Mucka: How’s that? Hugh: Indeed. It was this theist who pointed out to you that the irreducible primary of ontological being relative to the problem of origin includes the . . . uh . . . simplistic alternative of inanimate materiality, isn’t that right, Mucka? Mucka: Uh . . . Hugh: Isn’t that right? Mucka: But . . . I . . . uh . . . I mean . . . Hugh: Isn’t that right? Mucka: Uh . . . well . . . Hugh: You’re sputtering again, Mucka. Mucka: Uh . . . Hugh: You already agreed with this theist on that point, didn’t you, Mucka. Mucka: But . . . Hugh: Mucka, you’re a lying toad and a damn fool, aren’t you? Mucka: What just happened here? Hugh: Are you peeing your pants again, Mucka? Mucka: Oh hell . . . Hugh: Those shoes look expensive. Are they new? Mucka: Rottweilers chewing on my brain! Hugh: You sort of got lost when you claimed that the irreducible primary of consciousness relative to the problem of origin does not objectively exist in and of itself, didn’t you, Mucka? That’s the other alternative of the inescapable problem of origin. Mucka. My shoes are ruined. Hugh: The construct of divinity does impose itself on our minds without our willing that it do so, isn’t that right, Mucka? It’s the very same construct that cannot “be completely and definitively ruled out” at this time, as you put it, isn’t that right, Mucka? Mucka: I peed my pants. Hugh. Yes, indeed, Mucka, you peed your pants again. . . . And your shoes, they look expensive. Are they suede? Mucka: Two-hundred bucks down the toilet. Hugh: Almost literally so, Mucka. Mucka: Rottweilers! Big honkin’ Rottweilers! Hugh: Poor, Mucka, everybody knows Locke’s objection to Cartesian rationalism doesn’t hold up, that Hume is the true master of empiricism. Mucka: Huh? Hugh: Oh my! You didn’t know! How adorable. Still playing with the thought experiments of children and cultures and the conflation of the categorical distinction between theological abstracts and the rational-mathematical universals of ontology’s irreducible primaries? Still on that Lockean magical mystery detour, eh? Mucka: Gummy Bears? Hugh: I’m sorry, Mucka, no Gummy Bears for you. We’re well into the Kantian era of the analytic-synthetic dichotomy of the Cartesian-Humean synthesis, the philosophical foundation of quantum physics no less! Of course, Augustine, Aquinas and Calvin, the greatest theologians of all time, had already worked out the irreducible primaries as extrapolated from the Bible. Had Locke paid more attention to them, he could have avoided his error and not been superseded by Berkeley and then by Hume. Mucka: Cookies? Hugh: Sorry, Boo-boo, no cookies for you either, I’m afraid, for the construct of divinity is not a subjective abstract at the philosophical-mathematical level of apprehension at all, but an extrapolation of the objectively self-evident dichotomies of ontology’s irreducible primaries, and, sadly, “the pragmatic ones who are chiefly concerned with what they can definitively prove and work with” in your imaginary isolation would be the class retards, those stuck on sensory perception stupid, those who would apparently fail to grasp the inescapable implications of finiteness-infiniteness, divisibility-indivisibility, mutability-immutability, materiality-immateriality. . . . Mucka: I just made a boom-boom in my pants. Hugh: Poor, Mucka, you’re fallin’ apart at the seams, this whole farce of yours . . . Mucka: It’s those friggin’ Rottweilers chewing on my brain! Woof Hugh: Indeed, it’s the rational-mathematical imperatives of human cognition chewing on your brain, Mucka! Mucka: Woof Hugh: If your rather dull-witted and unimaginative tards of the static, tabula rasa paradigm had kept us stuck on sensory-perception stupid, we wouldn’t have had the Berkelean principle of motion, the philosophical precursor of general relativity. Mucka: I’m a know-nothing’ twit with Rottweilers chewing on my brain. Hugh: Are you an Objectivist loon, to boot, Mucka? Mucka: Woof Hugh: Ya sure talk like one. Mucka: Bite marks on my brain! Hugh: So it’s rational to argue that the greatest conceivable expression of cognition’s irreducible primaries of transcendence could be trumped? Mucka: Woof Hugh: By what exactly? Mucka: Finkledink! Hugh: Like Dawkins, with his risible line of teleological argumentation in The Blind Watchmaker, you’re a philosophical-theological illiterate, aren’t ya, Mucka? Mucka: I’m a damn fool! Hugh: Yeah, a damn buffoon of the new atheism arguing against strawmen, irrelevancies discarded centuries ago. Mucka: Just one Gummy Bear? Hugh: You unimaginative, closed-minded, bigoted ignoramus, the quantum vacuum is empty space! Mucka: Huh? Hugh: The whole point of Hawking, Krauss et al.’s desperate semantic hijinks of trying to make the gravitational energy of the vacuum of quantum physics out to be a metaphysical/existential nothingness just flies right over your head, doesn’t it, Mucka? Mucka: Huh? Hugh: They’re trying to negate the necessity of divinity by appealing to the energy of an existent comprised of intangible mass. For all we know its an interdimensional immateriality of transcendental proportions, ya friggin’ dolt! Mucka: Huh? Hugh: We’re venturing beyond the space-time continuum of our material senses into a realm of being that lies beyond the singularity. We can only quantify its effects from this side of things. It’s not our friggin’ senses with which we’re engaging it. We’re engaging it with the immaterial imperatives of cognition! Mucka: Huh? Hugh: You silly ass, general relativity and quantum mechanics don't undermine the construct and necessity of divinity at all; indeed, Berkeley and Kant anticipated that cosmological physicists would soon come to the realization that Newtonian physics break down at some point precisely because God must exist! Mucka: Huh? Hugh: Oh my, you didn't know this, eh? You don't grasp why that's so, do you, Mucka? Mucka: Huh? Hugh: Indeed, you stupidly and nonsensically asserted that that which would be an ontological immateriality would “likely not be immaterial if it actually existed”! Mucka: Huh? Hugh: Zoom! Right over your head, eh, Mucka? Mucka: Huh? Hugh: “And if it IS immaterial," you said, "its existence is going to be rather hard to verify without necessity”! Mucka: Huh? Hugh: You damn fool! Mucka: Huh? Hugh: The ultimate essence of neither a transcendent immateriality nor the materiality of an intangible mass is subject to direct scientific affirmation or falsification. Its all sheer mathematics! Mucka: Huh? Hugh: Berkeley and Kant understood that the heavy lifting in cosmological origins would be done by the rational-mathematical calculi of consciousness, not sensory perception, which is merely the grunt work of systematic verification. Mucka: Huh? Hugh: Deduction, you ignoramus! Not the inductive reasoning of a blank slate driven by sensory perception, you ignoramus! Deduction, Mucka! The closer we get to divinity! Deduction! The deductive reasoning of cognitive intuition and mathematics has to lead the way! Mucka: Huh? Hugh: Dawkins is not a physicist, Mucka. He doesn’t grasp the ramifications of the underlying philosophical paradigm on which general relativity and quantum mechanics rests, Mucka. Mucka: Huh? Hugh: Neither do the likes of Hawking and Krauss, really, but they instinctually perceive the hated specter of divinity lurking beyond the singularity, Mucka! Mucka: I just peed my pants again. Hugh: Someone wash this puddle of urine and boom booms down and toss it a bag of Gummy Bears. Side: Atheism is just a load of crap
0
points
Hugh: And we're back with Mucka, folks, well, sort of. We've washed him down and got him diapered. 'Course he's rolled up into a ball of catatonic incoherency on the floor . . . but he does have some Gummy Bears! So while we're not expecting a full recovery by any means, he's indicated with grunts that he's ready to go on. . . . We really don't care if it's good for his health or not given the lying ass toad that he is. Mucka: Gummy Bears! Hugh: So tell us, Mucka, do you understand why even the likes of Hawking and Kraus don’t grasp the ramifications of the philosophical paradigm on which general relativity and quantum physics rests? Mucka: Huh? Hugh: Just so. They’re standing on the shoulders of philosophical giants--Descartes, Berkeley, Hume, Kant--and on the shoulders of the theological giants who hammered out the primary irreducibles of ontology--Augustine, Aquinas and Calvin. No appreciation whatsoever. Mucka: Cookie? Hugh: Steve, toss that punk a cookie. Mucka: Coo. Hugh: They don’t read philosophy and theology, Mucka. They don’t think these guys can teach ’em anything, especially Krauss. The likes of Hawking and Krauss, these supposed geniuses think they’re above it all. They’re barbarians, really. Brilliant physicists to be sure, but, ultimately, of the knuckle-dragging-calculator variety without souls or the imagination to grasp the metaphysical implications of their ramblings beyond their next ragged exhalation of apostasy. They’re strictly second raters next to the likes of Copernicus, Galileo, Bacon and Newton. Stupidly, because they haven’t seriously considered the underlying metaphysics of their theorizing, these atheist barbarians are spouting pseudo-scientific claptrap about God as if it science. And if you look really close, you’re find they have no commonsense at all, spouting some of the most incredibly silly and incoherent crap about things outside their field. http://michaeldavidrawlings1.blogspot.com/2012/10/a-mountain-of-nothin-out-of-somethin-or.html http:// The biologists of atheism assure the physicists of atheism that we don’t need God for the origin of life, and the physicists of atheism assure the biologists of atheism that we don’t need God for the origin of the cosmos. In the meantime, general relativity and quantum physics point toward God. and the insurmountable barrier of information confronting microbiology screams God’s absolute necessity! Those of us who grasp the metaphysical implications of rational and empirical being, and know the science laugh our asses off at the slide-rule mentality of the new atheism. Ta ta, Jackasses. Side: Atheism is just a load of crap
2
points
Ta ta indeed. We both know that no matter who this turned out, you would declare yourself the winner. As is stands, my...uh..."work sabbatical" has ended, and between the new job and plans to write an album next month, I simply don't have time to waste anymore. I'll check in on the site on my days off, but I'm pretty much done debating jackasses. Side: Atheism knows everthing
-3
points
2
points
Snort. You did not. You provided ONE potential "proof"...I showed you how it does not count as anything more than highly limited speculation. You got confused and somehow came to the rather silly conclusion that we were some how talking about the same thing. You ignored most of my points or were too obtuse to understand them. And you spend the rest of the time claiming some kind of infallibility of your stance but quietly ignoring every option I've given you to support your stance. Side: Atheism knows everthing
-1
points
-1
points
Yeah. Let's review that argument. . . . “Long before you and I started this debate, or were even born, there was contention as to whether or not an intelligence was requisite for universal creation, or if it could have happened naturalistically without intent.” Right. Exactly. So what the beep? “Somehow you fail to identify that there is a difference between these two notions.” You’re out of your friggin’ mind. I’m guilty of no such failure. That’s precisely the distinction I made. Goal-posting again, eh? ”Your whole "irreducible primary (do you mean "primacy"?) of being" argument offers you nothing regarding God's actual nature.” No. I meant precisely what I wrote: “the irreducible primary of being relative to the problem of origin: (1) inanimateness or (2) consciousness. Period. The secondary concern of primacy would go to one or the other, depending on which of the two alternatives of the irreducible primary were the origin of all being. But you already know all that. You’re just goal-posting again, pretending not to understand, aren’t you? LOL! How lame. “Oh NOW you care about falsifiability. Never mind that your whole belief system is plagued with unfalsifiability.” Intellectual dishonesty. Fraud. Liar. Goal-posting. Behold the pathological depravity of atheism. I never argued that theological matters were subject to scientific falsification. You’re the only one who’s tried to argue that stupidity, albeit, to the negative. Theological considerations arise from certain axiomatic observations that reach beyond the limits of sensory perception and scientific inquiry. They’re not subject to the methodology of science. Instead, they’re subject to the universal rules of logic per the comprehensive expression of identity, and the ontological arguments of theology, which include the fundamentals of mathematical calculi and geometric forms, are not proofs of God’s existence, but proofs regarding the existence and the nature of the divine construct of origin, including the proof that the construct, unlike the material realm of being, is not subject to infinite regression. The theological ontologicals are logically sound and cannot be rationally countered. ”You believe this, yet repeatedly state that it is indisputably obvious that the universe was created by such a means. Has it never occurred to you how inconsistent your logic is?” Again, you lie. And you wonder why I treat atheists with such contempt. Recall. In that instance, you were speaking in the context of science, ya dolt. Hence, the context of my response is scientific. Non-empirical considerations about reality cannot be assessed scientifically. Such reside beyond the purview of science. If you’re not talking about empirical data, you’re not talking about science. The only one who keeps confounding this distinction is you, ya friggin’ retard. The logical inconsistency is yours, repeatedly yours, precisely because you can’t keep this obvious distinction in your mind for more than one brief moment at a time. Side: Atheism is just a load of crap
1
point
Right. Exactly. So what the beep? When I agreed that there was (likely) some sort of beginning to everything you got up and did a happy dance and acted like you had won, when I was still arguing against the necessity of God. Your the one moving the goal posts, my stance has never changed. I’m guilty of no such failure. That’s precisely the distinction I made. Then feel free to identify why your stance is more substantiated. But you already know all that. You’re just goal-posting again, pretending not to understand, aren’t you? Are you really to dense to get this? Your tactic, your ONE tactic, is, on its best days, only able to potentially support that a God sort of entity may have created the universe. That is all. It tells of nothing of God's nature, whether he still even exists, or what of the countless God Icons concocted by humanity would be the accurate version. As far as goal posting, you are the one who keeps insisting that my claim is God definitely does not exist. I never said that, I'm just pointing out why your one attempt to verify his existence is incomplete. You can't handle that so you throw little tantrums and insults around. And in your arrogance you fail to recognize that reason I'm not submitting to your proposal is because it is full of wholes. Its not that I'm too dumb to understand what you are saying, you are. Side: Atheism knows everthing
0
points
When I agreed that there was (likely) some sort of beginning to everything you got up and did a happy dance and acted like you had won, when I was still arguing against the necessity of God. Your the one moving the goal posts, my stance has never changed. You’re making absolutely no sense at all. You’re all over the place. Look. If there’s a beginning for everything than something or another has not always existed. Zoom! Right over! Something from nothing or something has always existed? Make up your mind. Are you really to dense to get this? Your tactic, your ONE tactic, is, on its best days, only able to potentially support that a God sort of entity may have created the universe. That is all. It tells of nothing of God's nature, whether he still even exists, or what of the countless God Icons concocted by humanity would be the accurate version. Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. The construct of God is that of the greatest conceivable thing. Such a divinity would not be contingent on anything or anyone, otherwise we wouldn’t be talking about God at all, but some creature. He would be immutable, indivisible and have no beginning or end. He would be eternally self-subsistent. None of your blather has any relevancy on the construct in and of itself. Zoom! Right over! I never said that, I'm just pointing out why your one attempt to verify his existence is incomplete. You can't handle that so you throw little tantrums and insults around. Bull. I have no problem with the fact that science cannot address anything beyond the material realm of being. That doesn’t bother me at all. It has no relevance on the existence or non-existence of God. Indeed, I’m the only one around here who has to keep reminding you materialist ninnies of that. The point here is that the idea of God is not derived from faith, but reason. The conclusion that He must be is not a matter of faith, but reason, while the flat-out denial of His existence is not rational at all. Yeah. You say you never did that. Right. Now that it’s been drilled through your head and you’re finally seeing that inescapable fact of logic clearly for the first time in your life. You weren’t clearly seeing it before. You still don’t clearly see why the idea of God would not be logically subject to infinite regression. When you finally grasp that, you’ll have two of the ontologicals of theology down. Then you’ll be ready to start considering the implications of the mathematical ontologicals. While no one gets past the barrier of faith beyond the ontologicals, God provides ample rational evidence of His existence. You’ve never really thought about the matter in any comprehensively systematic fashion before, thoroughly considered the implications of it all. You’ve been letting others do your thinking for you. Side: Atheism is just a load of crap
1
point
Sigh. Your comprehension is much worse than I originally speculated. Something from nothing or something has always existed? Make up your mind. A) We actually don't know, co the best we can draw is an educated guess. B) I never once argued for something from nothing. Although I have reminded you that we don't know for sure, I have always been more supportive of something having always existed. C) So what if something has always existed. That does not prove that that something is God. That is what I've been saying from the very beginning. I've been patiently waiting for you to move beyond this one sticking point, but you seem to have little else in your armory. The construct of God is that of the greatest conceivable thing. That's pretty ludicrously subjective. How would we measure "greatness". Or "perfection", which is often brought up in the ontological translations. He would be immutable, indivisible and have no beginning or end. He would be eternally self-subsistent. Nope. Being the greatest would not require any of this. It would just have to have the most qualities. The greatest wrestler of all time wouldn't necessarily have to be undefeated. Supernatural things may or may not exist. I'm not saying they definitely do not (although we sure have ruled out a hell of a lot of them by now), but you can't tell me that they definitely do. Science, can show us what is real, without having to define entities backwards and with traits that we have never seen anywhere. You’ve been letting others do your thinking for you. Wow, it is pretty impressive that you see yourself everywhere you look. Side: Atheism knows everthing
0
points
Sigh. Your comprehension is much worse than I originally speculated. Sigh. What a load a crap. Stow it. I’ve had you dead to right from the beginning. The failure of comprehension has been yours and yours alone. We actually don't know, co the best we can draw is an educated guess. You mean science can’t say. I don’t need science to tell me that something from nothing is an inexplicable absurdity. I have always been more supportive of something having always existed. Damn right ya have, because the alternative is an inexplicable absurdity. And, btw, I never said you had ever argued something from nothing. I’m well aware of the fact that you leaned toward something always existing. You’re merely goal-post moving again, pretending that I didn’t follow you. That does not prove that that something is God. I never said it did. You know what? Just shut up and read: “Let's not spend too much time here rehashing the impotency of the atheist's bland assertions in the face of the reductio ad absurdum of the irreducible mind or of the infinite regression of origin, as the atheist, whether he realizes it or not, necessarily acknowledges these imperatives in his denials. The idea of God is not a figment of human culture. It resides "at the base of knowledge", for the idea that something can arise from nothing (that existence can arise from nonexistence) is an inexplicable absurdity. “For those of you who believe in nothing and, therefore, are easily deceived by almost anything, atheistic scientists like Lawrence Krauss who intentionally muddle ontological distinctions, merely to get a rise out of the philosophers and theologians they detest, do a disservice to science. Whether in jest or not, it's irresponsible. They dishonor their profession and treat us all with contempt when they imply that the problem of existence is strictly a scientific matter. Atheists, whether they be accomplished scientists or not, are notoriously bad thinkers outside the comfort zone of their presumptuous metaphysics and are theologically illiterate bumpkins to boot. . . . The vacuum of quantum mechanics is not an ontological nothingness and does not resolve the problem of an infinite regress of contingent entities. —Michael David Rawlings, "A Mountain of Nothin' from Somethin' or Another", http://michaeldavidrawlings1.blogspot.com/2012/10/a-mountain-of-nothin-out-of-somethin-or.html “This impression comes to us immediately and all at once: either (1) the universe has always existed in some form or another, in some dimensional estate or another, or (2) it was caused to exist by a being who has always existed, a necessarily transcendent being of unlimited genius and power. In other words, the First Cause is either inanimate or sentient, immanent or transcendent. That does not mean, however, that this objectively apparent impression constitutes a proof for either alternative. It demonstrates that it's at the base of knowledge, that it's derived from reason, not faith” ( http:// ____________________ That's pretty ludicrously subjective. What? The greatest conceivable entity? You’re ludicrously stupid. It’s an objectively self-evident axiom of universal apprehension. The ontological proof, formally speaking, is thousands of years old and cannot be countered. You’re just an idiot, who thinks he’s reinvented the wheel. Every time you open your yap to deny God’s existence you’re acknowledging that you bloody well do understand what the greatest conceivable entity would be. You’re just another woefully dishonest little puke, aren’t you. Is it pride? Is it arrogance? What would be greater than God? What could possibly be greater than God? Hmm. Let’s see. Well, by definition, the greatest conceivable thing would have to be God, wouldn’t it? But wait a minute! Let’s not be so quick about it (though it be self-evident from a glance to anyone with an IQ above that of a darter snail). Let us ask: who created God? Well . . . that would be . . . uh . . . that is to say . . . uh . . . I mean . . . uh . . . what?! Shut up, genius, before you really hurt yourself. But wait you go on. Let’s see just how stupid you are: Nope. Being the greatest would not require any of this. It would just have to have the most qualities. The greatest wrestler of all time wouldn't necessarily have to be undefeated. LOL! You sure like moving them goal posts, don’t ya, ya little snake, ya silly little prick? “The greatest” at something, which is what you’re talking about, or “the greatest conceivable thing”? Ya dingbat, the greatest conceivable thing most certainly would have to be the eternally self-subsistent origin of all other existents, the First and the Last, the Alpha and Omega, an immutable, indivisible entity having no beginning and no end. Thanks for playing and thanks for proving that the construct of divinitus perfectus, unlike the material realm of being, is not subject to infinite regression. Next! Side: Atheism is just a load of crap
1
point
You mean science can’t say. I don’t need science to tell me that something from nothing is an inexplicable absurdity. Good luck with that, since causality is a specialty of science. And, btw, I never said you had ever argued something from nothing. Rawlings1234 in a prior debate with me: "Something from nothing or something has always existed? Make up your mind." It sucks that these words don't go away, huh? If you acknowledge it does not serve as a proof of God, if you also (sometimes) acknowledge that I am supportive of the universe coming from something instead of nothing, if you can distinguish between a something that is a God and a something that is not a God, how can you be so ridiculously sure that the atheist is not only wrong but stupid. Even using your antiquated definition of atheism, you have thus far failed to illustrate how it is irational to accept that even if there was a something, it would not have to be God. You strut around like the only person in the room who can speak French, then when someone starts talking French at you, you complain that people think you can speak French. What? The greatest conceivable entity? First off, "great" is subjective. Second, it is likely that different people have limits to what they can conceive. Third, if a God did happen to exist and truly was omni-everything, our ability to conceive it would be likely limited and so that definition would be wrong by necessity. Your skills at critical thinking are roughly equivalent to a teenager. The ontological proof, formally speaking, is thousands of years old and cannot be countered. Define which version you wish to use, and I will counter it. Greater thinkers than you or I have been shooting holes in that claptrap for the thousands of years its been around, and it only won't die because the religious mind is fueled by confirmation bias. What would be greater than God? What could possibly be greater than God? Well, something that actually exists in the real world. Like a toenail clipping or a beer can. You sure like moving them goal posts, don’t ya, ya little snake, ya silly little prick? You sure like saying "moving the goal post"...are you a groundskeeper. Ya dingbat, the greatest conceivable thing most certainly would have to be the eternally self-subsistent origin of all other existents, the First and the Last, the Alpha and Omega, an immutable, indivisible entity having no beginning and no end. So we play a little imagination game. Fun...back in the real world. Side: Atheism knows everthing
-2
points
Sure I do. I know, for instance, that Anselm's was so poorly structured that even Aquinas disputed and disregarded it. False. Aquinas, like others, argued that Anselm’s argument was simply not a conclusive proof in the existential sense, as existence is not an ordinary property. The criticism goes: Anselm’s argument is analytic, not synthetic. Aquinas did not disregard Anselm’s argument, let alone reject it. He demonstrated that it was actually a proof that further undermined atheism, that the construct of divinity was not subject to infinite regression. (The fact of the matter is that Moses, Isaiah, Christ and Paul had already shown this too.) Anselm, like Descartes, simply concluded that anything less than actuality could not be the greatest conceivable thing; hence, God must exist. That’s a perfectly rational conclusion, just not a conclusive proof. Aquinas admired the analytic aspect of Anselm’s argument and asserted his own version of it to infinite regression. As such, neither his nor Anselm’s version can be countered. To say that Anselm’s argument is poorly structured is to say that you really don’t grasp the matter at all. Anselm’s argument with regard to its synthetic aspect holds up in terms of logical probability. Aquinas, Kant, Hume and others merely showed that it cannot be asserted beyond logical probability. That’s all. They don't prove it at all because they are completely reliant on human understanding. Assuming linear sequencing of events is as we observe it, then all they "prove" is that something was there, uncreated, at the beginning. This something can violate certain universal rules only because it preceded them. Whether it continued to do so after the Big Bang, whether it even existed after the Big Bang, whether it acts with intelligence and intent, are all untouchable and unprovable by ontological arguments. This is nonsense, and amazingly someone keeps giving you points for your stupidities. It is you who is trying to raise a teleological argument, an incoherent stream of meaningless blather, against inescapable ontologicals. Either something has always existed or something can arise from nothing. There is no violation of any apprehensible universal in holding that the latter option is inexplicably absurdity. The principle of causality is inescapable. Period. Science necessarily presupposes causality. Period. And there isn’t but two alternatives with regard to origin: inanimateness or consciousness. Period. Whether it continued to do so after the Big Bang, whether it even existed after the Big Bang, whether it acts with intelligence and intent, are all untouchable and unprovable by ontological arguments. Uh-huh. Meaning what? Ontological arguments are not proofs of God’s existence are they? Isn’t that what I just told ya, ya dummy? They’re proofs regarding the problem of origin and, subsequently, the objective existence and nature of the construct of God, and clearly the cause you’re describing in this instance could not possibly be the divinity of universal understanding, but would be something less than God. Ya dummy, you didn’t just overthrow any ontological. You just proved them. They cannot be countered. The ontoloigcals of being: 1. Something has always existed. 2. The principle of causality is inescapable. 3. The irreducible primary of being are inanimateness or consciousness. 4. One or the other is the origin of all things. 5. Materiality cannot escape infinite regression. 6. There is only one construct of being known to man that does: God, a necessarily indivisible and immutable entity, an eternally self-subsistent spirit of pure consciousness Who has no beginning and has no end. 7. The possibility of God’s existence cannot be rationally denied. As a guess. And one with little substantiation and no necessity. Right. Oh, wait a minute! Materiality cannot escape infinite regression, can it, and the assertion of atheism is inherently self-negating isn’t it? Little substantiation, no necessity, eh? Bong! Sorry. Logical probability begs to differ with ya, genius. Please tell me that you aren't trying to claim that the very fact we are discussing this is somehow some proof of God's existence. Shut up. You know very well I’m not arguing that. Come out from behind that undeniable fact of God’s possibility so we can see the irrationality that atheism is, ya little pissant. Go ahead deny God’s existence again. I love it when the atheist admits he has to acknowledge the undeniable possibility God’s existence in the very act of denying there be any substance behind the undeniable possibility of God’s existence. I wrote: “Atheism is not only inherently contradictory standing on its own, it violates Occam’s razor.” You write: “No. You violate Occam's Razor when you add steps that are both unprovable and unnecessary.” LOL! It just gets better and better. So explain it to us again, genius. Atheism, riddled with inherent contradiction, can’t even get off the ground without negating itself in its very denial of the undeniable possibility of God’s existence, but it doesn’t violate Occam’s Razor? This point I really want you to support. Like a link or something. I would be curious to see it for myself. I don’t need a link. Any divisible entity may be divided without end, though not by any finite mind: a mathematical axiom of infinity. The number line has no beginning and no end. Indeed, it’s riddle with infinities. In terms of real numbers, what’s the distance between the integer 1 and 2, 2 and 3, 3 and 4, 4 and 5, 5 and 6, 6 and 7, 7 and 8, 8 and 9 . . . ? What’s the difference between the geometric forms of human consciousness and the reproduction of them by human beings in the material world? Answer: Perfection. Squaring the circle? Pi? If something fails to present itself indisputably, then it is intellectually dishonest and irrational to positively assert their existence as anything more than a possibility. Right. As if the calculi of sensory perception would be of any real practical use to us at all without the rational and mathematical axioms of cognition, beginning with the first principles of being, all of which point to and scream God’s existence. Side: Atheism is just a load of crap
1
point
Oh goody! Now you are actually putting some meat on the bones of your debate. I can finally ignore all the repetitive claptrap and insults and actually do what I signed on to this site to do! Hallelujah! The ontoloigcals of being: 1. Something has always existed. Sure looks that way. Accepted. 2. The principle of causality is inescapable. Well that is false on its face. In order to have this discussion in the way it is usually understood, we HAVE to escape the principle when we trace it all the way to the beginning. It is virtually impossible to use human understanding of logic without accepting that SOMETHING existed uncaused at the beginning. So its not entirely inescapable. In fact, we don't even know how many things could have escaped this. 3. The irreducible primary of being are inanimateness or consciousness. Okay, I can work with that. 4. One or the other is the origin of all things. It could be both too, but for the purposes of this debate I will accept this premise. 5. Materiality cannot escape infinite regression. Oops. Couple of problems. a) I've mentioned before that energy seems capable too. You said something about a theory that discounts it, but you never went in detail. Care to? b) It can if you take time out of the equation. Now where would we go to find a place without time? How about the singularity out of which the Big Bang emerged. 6. There is only one construct of being known to man that does: God, not known, speculated. And we can speculate a non-sentient substitute just easily. Sure, such a thing is unprovable, but then, so is big G. a necessarily indivisibleJust because it preceded infinite regression, does not mean it continued to do so after time was introduced to the equation. and immutable same as my last statement. entity, absolutely unsubstanciated. an eternally self-subsistent that's pretty easy to be without time wearing you down. spirit of pure consciousness anthropomorphic speculation. Who has no beginning and has no end. In a prior state of existence, sure. But now that we have time, we don't know. We can only argue for the no beginning. The no end is further speculation. 7. The possibility of God’s existence cannot be rationally denied. And yet, neither can it be supported conclusively. Certainly not by this method. What’s the difference between the geometric forms of human consciousness and the reproduction of them by human beings in the material world? Man, I thought this was going to be so much better than that. So, your saying because mathematics can help us envision concepts that do not exist in reality, these things represent God? Silly. Side: Atheism knows everthing
-1
points
Oh goody! Now you are actually putting some meat on the bones of your debate. Oh, goody, you’re going to further illustrate the new atheism’s lack of scholarship and thoughtfulness in the face of well-established, centuries-old philosophical/theological motifs. Well that is false on its face. In order to have this discussion in the way it is usually understood, we HAVE to escape the principle when we trace it all the way to the beginning. It is virtually impossible to use human understanding of logic without accepting that SOMETHING existed uncaused at the beginning. So its not entirely inescapable. In fact, we don't even know how many things could have escaped this. Well, you are flat on you face with a thoughtless fallacy, aren’t you? Novice. Once again you demonstrate your lack of depth in the history of ideas and events. The inescapable principle of causality IS the understanding that something has always existed uncaused precisely because of the inexplicable absurdity of something being caused by nothing, as you say, due to the “human understanding of logic.” Dummy. That’s what the principle of causality means with regard to the problem of origin and, subsequently, the ad absurdum of infinite regression in philosophical and theological terms. LOL! Shut up! Dawkins made the same embarrassing error in a debate at Oxford against a learned theologian and had to be corrected by the monitor. Dawkins’ theological-philosophical ignorance is legendary. It could be both too, but for the purposes of this debate I will accept this premise. Indeed. But . . . for the sake of simplicity. I write: “Materiality cannot escape infinite regression.” You write: “Oops. Couple of problems. a) I've mentioned before that energy seems capable too. You said something about a theory that discounts it, but you never went in detail. Care to? b) It can if you take time out of the equation. Now where would we go to find a place without time? How about the singularity out of which the Big Bang emerged.” Oops, no it can’t. I said nothing about a theory. I pointed out that sheer energy presupposes the material mass of space, an inanimateness that, unlike the construct of divinitus perfectus, is not beyond the reproach of infinite regression. As for time in terms of casualty or casualty in terms of time: this is arguably a conceptual relic of Newtonian physics and general relativity on the other side of the singularity. We’d still be talking about a previous cause of some kind, subject to a dimension of time or not. Just because it preceded infinite regression, does not mean it continued to do so after time was introduced to the equation. . . . Look. You’ve been soundly refuted at least four times over this same shoeshine. You’re not refuting the divinitus perfectus of the universal understanding; you’re contradictorily reducing that which is conceptually impervious to reduction. You’re concocting a strawman, describing a contingent entity—a creature!—proving the unassailably of the divinitus perfectus of the universal understanding. Zoom! Right over you head! The construct cannot be rationally countered! Any argument forged against it negates itself—a risible absurdum!—and proves the very thing it deems to counter. Let me help you: what you’re trying to argue it that the immutable, indivisible and eternally self-subsistent entity of first cause that is omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent and has no beginning or end, is not an immutable, indivisible and eternally self-subsistent entity of first cause that is omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent and has no beginning or end, because, this immutable, indivisible and eternally self-subsistent entity of first cause that is omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent and has no beginning or end, is not an immutable, indivisible and eternally self-subsistent entity of first cause that is omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent and has no beginning or end. In the final analysis, all you’re really saying it that God never existed in the first place! Nonsensical. Give it up! The proof has stood for centuries. It cannot be countered. I write: “The possibility of God’s existence cannot be rationally denied.” You write: “And yet, neither can it be supported conclusively. Certainly not by this method.” This is a cognitive error on your part. You’ve already conceded that the possibility of God’s existence cannot be rationally denied, and the objectively existent construct of God obviously does support the conclusion of God’s existence! What you mean here is that God’s existence in and of itself is not conclusively proven by the objectively existent construct of God. Correct. It is not. But then the argument doesn’t claim to prove God’s existence either. Indeed, God’s existence would not be contingent upon any given finite person’s decision regarding the universal ontologicals of theology, would it? Nevertheless, the Bible claims that God has in fact proven His existence in the time-space continuum in the person of Jesus Christ via His miracles, including the greatest feat of them all: the revelation of the resurrected Christ in real historical time and space, witnessed by hundreds. Sorry, but that’s all the empirical proof He’s going to give you until He returns once again, this time witnessed by all. Man, I thought this was going to be so much better than that. So, your saying because mathematics can help us envision concepts that do not exist in reality, these things represent God? Silly. Silly? Stow it. I’ve just destroyed a number of silly arguments proffered by you, wherein you expose your historical-conceptual illiteracy, unwittingly negate your supposed agnostic atheism and confound a simple observation. The mathematical proofs of infinity and perfection do exist in reality, albeit, in the realm of consciousness. They are necessarily reproduced, albeit, imperfectly beyond consciousness in the material realm of being. They are indispensable to technology and science. They are indispensable to physics. Indeed, we are attempting to reach beyond the singularity with the mathematical calculi of quantum physics. We might even be describing the transcendent realm of divinity beyond the time-space continuum. Anymore rather dull or thoughtless sentiments you’d care to air at this time? Side: Atheism is just a load of crap
2
points
Once again you demonstrate your lack of depth in the history of ideas and events. The inescapable principle of causality IS the understanding that something has always existed uncaused precisely because of the inexplicable absurdity of something being caused by nothing, as you say, due to the “human understanding of logic.” So instead of being good thinkers about it, they gave it a cute ironic name. They identified that it isn't impossible for something to always have existed uncreated, but failed to realize that if it happened once, it could happen more than once. Their confirmation bias not only identified this "first cause" with intent prematurely, they also prematurely put a limit to the number of events, and thus saying that "everything else" was tied into this one event shows that the pulled down the tent before they were done camping. Just like every attempt at logical proofs of divinity, they gave up once they got the answer that they already believed in. Not really good for establishing credibility, and still tells us nothing about whatever uncreated thing or things may exist or may have existed in the past. I pointed out that sheer energy presupposes the material mass of space, an inanimateness that, unlike the construct of divinitus perfectus, is not beyond the reproach of infinite regression. Energy preceded space, and operates under different characteristics. Apples and oranges. We’d still be talking about a previous cause of some kind, subject to a dimension of time or not. Sure. But we haven't ruled out that this cause could have changed or be subject to change once time is applied. You’re not refuting the divinitus perfectus of the universal understanding; Yes I am. you’re contradictorily reducing that which is conceptually impervious to reduction. Because it isn't. You are adding qualities which are not requisite, or at the very least failing to identify why they are requisite. It is as if we were having this conversation: R: I have cured death! M: Really? That's impressive! Care to demonstrate? R: I've cured death! M: So you've said. But how? R: I've cured death! M: I'm starting to doubt that you have "cured death"... R: You are an idiot because you don't believe I've cured death! M:.... R: I've cured death! Let me help you: what you’re trying to argue it that the immutable, indivisible and eternally self-subsistent entity of first cause that is omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent and has no beginning or end, is not an immutable, indivisible and eternally self-subsistent entity of first cause that is omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent and has no beginning or end, because, this immutable, indivisible and eternally self-subsistent entity of first cause that is omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent and has no beginning or end, is not an immutable, indivisible and eternally self-subsistent entity of first cause that is omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent and has no beginning or end. No, what I'm trying to argue is that you have yet to support the claim that it has any of these properties. Just because you can imagine something does not make it real. Just because you claim something does not make it true. Now, support the necesity of those qualities, or admit that there is no reason to believe that your construct is anything more than a flight of fancy. You’re not refuting the divinitus perfectus of the universal understanding; you’re contradictorily reducing that which is conceptually impervious to reduction. I'm asking you to explain why it is "conceptually impervious to reduction." Maybe some day, when you grow up a little, you will realize that just saying something is true does not make it so. This is a cognitive error on your part. You’ve already conceded that the possibility of God’s existence cannot be rationally denied, and the objectively existent construct of God obviously does support the conclusion of God’s existence! Yes to the first half, a big fat no to the second. I've patiently tried to get you to support your claim. This is a debate, not a story telling session you ignoramus. The mathematical proofs of infinity and perfection do exist in reality, albeit, in the realm of consciousness. If we can imagine it, it must be true.....riiiiiiight. "Perfection", whatever that really means without some kind of qualification has never been identified beyond daydreams. Side: Atheism knows everthing
-2
points
Good luck with that, since causality is a specialty of science. Point? It sucks that these words don't go away, huh? Excuse me. I read what you said. I also read an idea written by you in which you unwittingly contracted yourself, just as you do again. See below. If you acknowledge it does not serve as a proof of God, if you also (sometimes) acknowledge that I am supportive of the universe coming from something instead of nothing, if you can distinguish between a something that is a God and a something that is not a God, how can you be so ridiculously sure that the atheist is not only wrong but stupid. Well, which atheist ‘am I arguing with here? An atheist or a modified atheist of agnostic atheism? The atheist’s position is indisputably irrational. Even using your antiquated definition of atheism . . . Oh, so now the failure to be a mind-reader is not sophomoric, but antiquated too? IDIOT. The obvious denotation of the term “atheism” in this debate per its formal parameters is hard atheism, not your “agnostic atheism”! . . . you have thus far failed to illustrate how it is irational to accept that even if there was a something, it would not have to be God. And yet . . . he repeats this “duh” again. . . . Once again, retard: “. . . In other words, the First Cause is either inanimate or sentient, immanent or transcendent. . . . That does not mean, however, that this objectively apparent impression constitutes a proof for either alternative. It demonstrates that it's at the base of knowledge, that it's derived from reason, not faith” ( http:// You strut around like the only person in the room who can speak French, then when someone starts talking French at you, you complain that people think you can speak French. When you get to French, give me a heads up. We know your English ain’t so good. 1. The formal parameters of the debate clearly denote “hard atheism.” 2. I’m supposed to read your mind and know that within the formal parameters of a debate denoting “hard atheism” that you’re an “agnostic atheist” without an emphatic clarification. 3. Agnosticism and atheist/theism are obvious equivalents. Not! 4. After being told at least four different times now that the clear alternatives with regard to the problem of origin are either inanimateness or consciousness, you still utter: “you have thus far failed to illustrate how it is irrational to accept that even if there was a something, it would not have to be God.” Psst. Dingbat. What I’ve been illustrating from the beginning is that there are two alternatives: inanimateness or consciousness. Neither can be rationally denied. The atheist thinks to deny the possibility of the latter. It cannot be rationally done. You’ve conceded that. You also say that you’re not an atheist in the strictest sense of its meaning or in the sense of the formal parameters of this debate. Fine. So move on. Which of the two alternatives is more logically probable given the rational and mathematical axioms of being? That’s where I’m at. Where the hell have you been all this time? First off, "great" is subjective. Second, it is likely that different people have limits to what they can conceive. Third, if a God did happen to exist and truly was omni-everything, our ability to conceive it would be likely limited and so that definition would be wrong by necessity. Your skills at critical thinking are roughly equivalent to a teenager. First, shut up. Second, shut up again. I’ve already demolished this “subjective” stupidity. You’ve already conceded the idea God. Zoom! Right over! The construct is not subjective. It is universally and objectively understood by all, dingbat! Define which version you wish to use, and I will counter it. Greater thinkers than you or I have been shooting holes in that claptrap for the thousands of years its been around, and it only won't die because the religious mind is fueled by confirmation bias. What a fool. Universally and objectively understood constructs of transcendent origin cannot die. Great thinkers, eh? I’ve read just about all of them, and none of them have ever claimed to have overthrown the inescapable construct of divnitus perfectus. You’re still stupidly confounding the actual nature of ontological arguments. They are not proofs of God’s existence! They are proofs of God’s undeniable potentiality in terms of origin, and demonstrate the logical probability of God’s existence over the irrationalism of atheism. They stand. They have not nor can they ever be rationally countered. Well, something that actually exists in the real world. Like a toenail clipping or a beer can. Would be greater than God? So now I’m talking to the irrational hard atheist who knows for certain that God doesn’t exist? Make up you mind. I write: “Ya dingbat, the greatest conceivable thing most certainly would have to be the eternally self-subsistent origin of all other existents, the First and the Last, the Alpha and Omega, an immutable, indivisible entity having no beginning and no end.” You write: “So we play a little imagination game. Fun...back in the real world.” So you know that in the real world of logic per the fact of the existence of the material realm of being that you can’t rationally deny the possibility of God’s existence as Creator, but simultaneously argue that this real-world imperative of inescapable logic is a mere figment of your imagination. Which is it, Dingbat? Gee, you were sure protesting long and loud about not being guilty of the obvious irrationally of hard atheism before . . . only to jump into those shoes now. Wow. Just wow! Don’t those goal posts get heavy after awhile? And Rawlings beats the poor boy senseless again! Score! If only you could move ‘em faster and not keep getting all tangle up in your inconsistencies. LOL! Side: Atheism is just a load of crap
0
points
Point? Science is exactly what can tell you beyond your limited perception inexplicable absurdity. To use that as support and then pretend like it doesn't matter puts you in pseudo-science territory, and while I don't deny that there IS an absurd notion, I don't need you to wallow in pseudo-science either. Its tacky. Well, which atheist ‘am I arguing with here? An atheist or a modified atheist of agnostic atheism? The agnostic atheist. That's all it has been. While I can't fault you for somehow missing that post, I can fault you for claiming I contradict myself instead of realizing I was only contradicted your myopic definition of atheism. The obvious denotation of the term “atheism” in this debate per its formal parameters is hard atheism, not your “agnostic atheism”! You didn't formally specify hard atheism, and the common definition is so antiquated and myopic, I often forget that it is the default position of people who aren't prepared to deal with agnostic atheism's increased rationality. 1. The formal parameters of the debate clearly denote “hard atheism.” No it doesn't. Not even close. In fact all your nonsense about "crap" and insulting your opponents IQ levels does not seem particularly formal to me at all. 2. I’m supposed to read your mind and know that within the formal parameters of a debate denoting “hard atheism” that you’re an “agnostic atheist” without an emphatic clarification. YOU DID NOT DENOTE HARD ATHEISM. If you had, I wouldn't have been here. I DID EMPHATICALLY CLARIFY THAT I'M AN AGNOSTIC ATHEIST. And since that has been my stance all along, you wouldn't need to read my mind to make sense of it. All you would have to do is....(I hope you are sitting down, 'cuz this is going to blow your mind)...actually respond to what I'm saying instead of replying to what you want me to say. Kind of important in debate. 3. Agnosticism and atheist/theism are obvious equivalents. Not! I did not say they are. I said they interweave and effect each other, creating a minimal of four major divisions instead of three. Because your tripartite scale does not account for people like me. And us atheists realized that decades ago. Its been a part of academic discussion since I was born. Don't know how a philosopher of your obvious eminence missed that, unless everything you were taught on this subject happened inside a tiny little no-atheist zone where you didn't realize you were being brainwashed. “you have thus far failed to illustrate how it is irrational to accept that even if there was a something, it would not have to be God.” Well...you have. You add qualities to that concept unnecessarily and without much examination. Dingbat. That’s where I’m at. Where the hell have you been all this time? Waiting for you to start trying to show why it has to be a God and not something non-god. You finally started trying, although with little success. You are getting mildly better though. slow clap The construct is not subjective. And yet there have been so many different Gods in so many different religions. Nope, no subjectivity there. And "great" is what I called subjective, not the construct, though both are. They are not proofs of God’s existence! They are proofs of God’s undeniable potentiality in terms of origin, and demonstrate the logical probability of God’s existence over the irrationalism of atheism. Yeah, I concede the possibility of God's existence frequently. But there is no necessity of existence, and every attempt you have made to assign qualities to him has added unsupportable steps. That is inevitable with believers. By the way, atheists don't believe in God. It really is that simple. Would be greater than God? At this point, I'm just fucking with you. Though if it turned out that God did not in fact exist, then yes, those things would be greater. Score! That's hilarious considering the actual score of this debate. Side: Atheism knows everthing
0
points
Science is exactly what can tell you beyond your limited perception inexplicable absurdity. To use that as support and then pretend like it doesn't matter puts you in pseudo-science territory, and while I don't deny that there IS an absurd notion, I don't need you to wallow in pseudo-science either. Its tacky. This is utter rubbish. I’m defending sound science against its abuse. Idiots are appealing to the limitations of sensory perception and scientific inquiry in regard to the transcendent. Science and religion are not mutually exclusive. But in the hands of the new atheism science is being driven into the mire of irrationalism and metaphysical la-la. I can fault you for claiming I contradict myself instead of realizing I was only contradicted your myopic definition of atheism.
. . . You didn't formally specify hard atheism, and the common definition is so antiquated and myopic. . . Shut up, you idiot, there is nothing obvious about any nuanced atheism without clarification, ya phony ass. Ya stepped all over your member, and now you’re trying to run for cover. ______________________ Let’s see the real stupidity on display here. Let’s replay it again. . . . The only sense in which a theist or an atheist might be an agnostic would be in a purely epistemological sense in regard to ultimate potentialities. Don’t give me this 19th-Century crap. Try, since time immemorial. There's nothing profound or new about that. With regard to the various theories of quantum mechanics beyond the boundary of the singularity of general relativity, for example, I’m an agnostic. I find it all very fascinating, but for the most part, we are talking about the unfalsifiable, albeit, rationally and mathematically feasible potentialities of quantum physics’ calculi. But you wouldn’t know that about this theist without that declaration, now would you? You’re talking about conceptual compounds inextricably bound to modification or predication. You are making categorical and grammatical claims that are flat-out wrong! Categorical logic 101. Neither the rational concepts of atheism, theism or agnosticism, nor their grammatical referents are obvious equivalents. Period. And you most certainly did imply that, for on the very face of them, sans any further clarification in terms of modification or predication, they most certainly are mutually exclusive relative to their primary denotations. I’m not a mind reader, and this nonsense about me allegedly “sitting on [my] ivory castle basking in hate [LOL!],” while “the atheism movement has progressed and evolved and taken the more rational stance” is just a smile and a shoeshine attempting to cover what was in fact a poorly expressed idea on your part, riddled with categorical and grammatical error. Further, I’m engaged with more than just a few atheists right now who are trying to defend the very irrationality to which you allude. Clarification is required! An agnostic atheist is not necessarily the same animal as an atheist at all. The "broadly" section is essentially a different definition and counts as a layman's definition rather than an academic one. That’s right. Beyond the fundamentals of simple referents, clarification is always required, isn’t it? In the absence of it, it is not unreasonable to assume the primary denotations of simple referents, is it? Formal academic definitions inevitably entail complex concepts (compound abstractions), don’t they? They are not self-evident in the absence of clarification, are they? Indeed, quite often, a definition of terms in the Socratic tradition is required, isn’t it? Sensible people don’t just pop off and start calling the understanding of others sophomoric in the absence of such clarification as if these others could read their friggin’ minds, do they? I didn't say they were equivalent, I said they were intertwined and necessary for proper identification of one's actual stance. That’s what you meant. I know. But in trying to make me out to be someone who is not aware of the epistemological essence of agnosticism (as if any sensible person would believe that given the obvious caliber and the education behind the pieces authored by me on my blog!), you wrote “agnostics can be either theists or atheists.” That’s a rather confused, poorly expressed idea with regard to the one you were after, isn’t it? Instead, one might be an agnostic who leans toward theism or atheism, or one might be a theist or an atheist with an agnostic attitude toward certain conjectures regarding ultimate realities. Saying that “agnostics can be either theists or atheists” is not only nonsensical but blurs the distinction between “belief” and “knowledge.” It is you, not I, who confounded this distinction. I never once said anything about belief or disbelief with regard to agnosticism, as you errantly implied, whatsoever! Nor would I precisely because I do know what the essence of agnosticism is, isn’t that right, Mr. Agnostics-Can-Be-Either-Theists-Or- See how dishonestly can get one all tangled up in error. Oh what tangle webs we weave. . . . Go ahead and delude yourself, but I assure you that my mind is quite actively alive and versatile. It’s got plenty of spring and elasticity, and it doesn’t tolerate the sort of categorical and grammatical errors blathered by you. Yeah, that’s right, you attempted to impugn my intelligence by assigning strawman to me! Instead, you got yourself all tangled up in obvious categorical and grammatical errors, didn’t ya? I don’t knowingly argue against strawmen, strawman. You’re full of straw. Bottom line: I missed your earlier clarification. That is all that happened here. The rest of your natterings were the silly categorical and grammatical errors of one trying to dishonestly attribute stupidities to another that were never thought, never uttered, never imagined, when all you had to say was: “Hey, you missed my earlier clarification; I’m an atheist with agnostic leanings in regard to ultimate origin.” Get this through your thick skull: there’s absolutely nothing profound, amazing or new about that. It’s a simple matter. In my sleep, with both sides of my brain tied behind my back. Move on, and I’ll make no more mention of this foolishness of yours. Side: Atheism is just a load of crap
2
points
I’m defending sound science against its abuse. Well then, start applying the scientific method. ALL of it this time. Get back to me when you realize that just as the scientific method cannot resolutely deny supernatural occurrences until it proves that they are naturalistic, nor can it support them. You can't hide behind science and then turn your back on it when you hit a brick wall. We likely wouldn't have been able to harness electromagnetism if we operated that way, and you wouldn't have the opportunity to broadcast your ignorance globally. The rest of your repetitive nonsense is just reiterating that even though I said, repeatedly, in various arguments that I am not denying the possibility of God, you continued to assume that I was. You don't want to debate, you want to pat yourself on the back with one hand and use the other to pee on anyone who is not cowed by your unwarranted arrogance. Side: Atheism knows everthing
-1
points
Its been a part of academic discussion since I was born. Don't know how a philosopher of your obvious eminence missed that, unless everything you were taught on this subject happened inside a tiny little no-atheist zone where you didn't realize you were being brainwashed. Shut up, ya moron, you're babbling nonsense. Just making crap up. Once again. . . . _____________________ The only sense in which a theist or an atheist might be an agnostic would be in a purely epistemological sense in regard to ultimate potentialities. Don’t give me this 19th-Century crap. Try, since time immemorial. There's nothing profound or new about that. With regard to the various theories of quantum mechanics beyond the boundary of the singularity of general relativity, for example, I’m an agnostic. I find it all very fascinating, but for the most part, we are talking about the unfalsifiable, albeit, rationally and mathematically feasible potentialities of quantum physics’ calculi. But you wouldn’t know that about this theist without that declaration, now would you? You’re talking about conceptual compounds inextricably bound to modification or predication. You are making categorical and grammatical claims that are flat-out wrong! Categorical logic 101. Neither the rational concepts of atheism, theism or agnosticism, nor their grammatical referents are obvious equivalents. Period. And you most certainly did imply that, for on the very face of them, sans any further clarification in terms of modification or predication, they most certainly are mutually exclusive relative to their primary denotations. I’m not a mind reader, and this nonsense about me allegedly “sitting on [my] ivory castle basking in hate [LOL!],” while “the atheism movement has progressed and evolved and taken the more rational stance” is just a smile and a shoeshine attempting to cover what was in fact a poorly expressed idea on your part, riddled with categorical and grammatical error. Further, I’m engaged with more than just a few atheists right now who are trying to defend the very irrationality to which you allude. Clarification is required! An agnostic atheist is not necessarily the same animal as an atheist at all. The "broadly" section is essentially a different definition and counts as a layman's definition rather than an academic one. That’s right. Beyond the fundamentals of simple referents, clarification is always required, isn’t it? In the absence of it, it is not unreasonable to assume the primary denotations of simple referents, is it? Formal academic definitions inevitably entail complex concepts (compound abstractions), don’t they? They are not self-evident in the absence of clarification, are they? Indeed, quite often, a definition of terms in the Socratic tradition is required, isn’t it? Sensible people don’t just pop off and start calling the understanding of others sophomoric in the absence of such clarification as if these others could read their friggin’ minds, do they? I didn't say they were equivalent, I said they were intertwined and necessary for proper identification of one's actual stance. That’s what you meant. I know. But in trying to make me out to be someone who is not aware of the epistemological essence of agnosticism (as if any sensible person would believe that given the obvious caliber and the education behind the pieces authored by me on my blog!), you wrote “agnostics can be either theists or atheists.” That’s a rather confused, poorly expressed idea with regard to the one you were after, isn’t it? Instead, one might be an agnostic who leans toward theism or atheism, or one might be a theist or an atheist with an agnostic attitude toward certain conjectures regarding ultimate realities. Saying that “agnostics can be either theists or atheists” is not only nonsensical but blurs the distinction between “belief” and “knowledge.” It is you, not I, who confounded this distinction. I never once said anything about belief or disbelief with regard to agnosticism, as you errantly implied, whatsoever! Nor would I precisely because I do know what the essence of agnosticism is, isn’t that right, Mr. Agnostics-Can-Be-Either-Theists-Or- See how dishonestly can get one all tangled up in error. Oh what tangle webs we weave. . . . Go ahead and delude yourself, but I assure you that my mind is quite actively alive and versatile. It’s got plenty of spring and elasticity, and it doesn’t tolerate the sort of categorical and grammatical errors blathered by you. Yeah, that’s right, you attempted to impugn my intelligence by assigning strawman to me! Instead, you got yourself all tangled up in obvious categorical and grammatical errors, didn’t ya? I don’t knowingly argue against strawmen, strawman. You’re full of straw. Bottom line: I missed your earlier clarification. That is all that happened here. The rest of your natterings were the silly categorical and grammatical errors of one trying to dishonestly attribute stupidities to another that were never thought, never uttered, never imagined, when all you had to say was: “Hey, you missed my earlier clarification; I’m an atheist with agnostic leanings in regard to ultimate origin.” Get this through your thick skull: there’s absolutely nothing profound, amazing or new about that. It’s a simple matter. In my sleep, with both sides of my brain tied behind my back. Move on, and I’ll make no more mention of this foolishness of yours. Side: Atheism is just a load of crap
-2
points
Well...you have. You add qualities to that concept unnecessarily and without much examination. Shut up, ya friggin' moron. Do you or do you not know what it is you're denying? Baby talk. Gibberish. Look. You’ve been soundly refuted at least four times over this same shoeshine. You’re not refuting the divinitus perfectus of the universal understanding; you’re contradictorily reducing that which is conceptually impervious to reduction. You’re concocting a strawman, describing a contingent entity—a creature!—proving the unassailably of the divinitus perfectus of the universal understanding. Zoom! Right over you head! The construct cannot be rationally countered! Any argument forged against it negates itself—a risible absurdum!—and proves the very thing it deems to counter. Let me help you: what you’re trying to argue it that the immutable, indivisible and eternally self-subsistent entity of first cause that is omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent and has no beginning or end, is not an immutable, indivisible and eternally self-subsistent entity of first cause that is omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent and has no beginning or end, because, this immutable, indivisible and eternally self-subsistent entity of first cause that is omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent and has no beginning or end, is not an immutable, indivisible and eternally self-subsistent entity of first cause that is omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent and has no beginning or end. In the final analysis, all you’re really saying it that God never existed in the first place! Nonsensical. Give it up! The proof has stood for centuries. It cannot be countered. Side: Atheism is just a load of crap
2
points
-2
points
2
points
There you go with your apples and oranges. Just because I concede that God is a possibility does not mean that any old definition of him is automatically true. You need to support it, or you are just relying on faith, and that won't help you establish veracity. Side: Atheism knows everthing
-2
points
Nope, no subjectivity there. And "great" is what I called subjective, not the construct, though both are. And yet you concede the construct of God cannot be rationally denied. Well, gee wiz, if it's subjective, it obviously can be rationally denied. Psst. So tell us, dingbat, what's the objectively universal construct of God that can't be rationally denied in one instance, but can be in the next because it suddenly becomes something that's subjective? Side: Atheism is just a load of crap
1
point
-2
points
That's hilarious considering the actual score of this debate. What's really hilarious is that every argument you idiotic atheists have presented here, refuted by me, has gone down in flames on this site standing on its own, beginning with the pseudo-scientific blather that science falsifies God's existence. So congratulations, you're the King of Idiots, blathering nonsense that hasn’t held up anywhere else on this site except in a debate specifically designed to attract loser atheists and their loser arguments all in one place and poke fun at ‘em. Thanks for the material for my blog. I do a periodical called “The Hugh Hewitt Show,” and you’re my latest guest. It’s a real hoot. Shoot the link when it’s up. _______________ An undeniable, objective, universal construct that becomes a subjective construct without warning. LOL! The principle of causality is not the ad absurdum of something out of nothing/infinite regression, but some unheard of incoherent blather! You must have gotten that stupidity from Dawkins. Did he actually repeat in one of his books? LOL! Ya never wrote: "agnostics can be either theists or atheists.” LOL! As if "they (agnostic, theist, atheist) interweave and effect each other, creating a minimal of four major divisions instead of three" weren't a load of meaningless crap dreamt up by you out of thin air. LOL! Yeah. Right. Tell us, genius, what's this fourth, obvious and universally known major division given that "agnosticism" goes to epistemology and the other two go to conviction? Where’s you’re link. Why, this should be in Wikipedia. What is this new referent of yours: "grunkeldoodoo"? LOL! Oh, that's right. There is no obvious or universally known fourth division, is there? That's some myopic made up bull, isn‘t it? There's obviously no such term or concept, but any number of given new concepts requiring the clarification of grammatical modification or predication, isn‘t that right, ya friggin’ sociopath? "[P]hilosopher of your obvious eminence. . . ." LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! Oh, this philosopher's got nothing on you: Bullshit Con-Artist of Four Major Divisions. Now, is it 5 out of 7 rounds to win the title in each division? LOL! Four major divisions! LOL! ____________________________ Let’s rub it in. Let’s replay the reality again, you know, expose your pathological lying ass one more time. . . . The only sense in which a theist or an atheist might be an agnostic would be in a purely epistemological sense in regard to ultimate potentialities. Don’t give me this 19th-Century crap. Try, since time immemorial. There's nothing profound or new about that. With regard to the various theories of quantum mechanics beyond the boundary of the singularity of general relativity, for example, I’m an agnostic. I find it all very fascinating, but for the most part, we are talking about the unfalsifiable, albeit, rationally and mathematically feasible potentialities of quantum physics’ calculi. But you wouldn’t know that about this theist without that declaration, now would you? You’re talking about conceptual compounds inextricably bound to modification or predication. You are making categorical and grammatical claims that are flat-out wrong! Categorical logic 101. Neither the rational concepts of atheism, theism or agnosticism, nor their grammatical referents are obvious equivalents. Period. And you most certainly did imply that, for on the very face of them, sans any further clarification in terms of modification or predication, they most certainly are mutually exclusive relative to their primary denotations. I’m not a mind reader, and this nonsense about me allegedly “sitting on [my] ivory castle basking in hate [LOL!],” while “the atheism movement has progressed and evolved and taken the more rational stance” is just a smile and a shoeshine attempting to cover what was in fact a poorly expressed idea on your part, riddled with categorical and grammatical error. Further, I’m engaged with more than just a few atheists right now who are trying to defend the very irrationality to which you allude. Clarification is required! An agnostic atheist is not necessarily the same animal as an atheist at all. The "broadly" section is essentially a different definition and counts as a layman's definition rather than an academic one. That’s right. Beyond the fundamentals of simple referents, clarification is always required, isn’t it? In the absence of it, it is not unreasonable to assume the primary denotations of simple referents, is it? Formal academic definitions inevitably entail complex concepts (compound abstractions), don’t they? They are not self-evident in the absence of clarification, are they? Indeed, quite often, a definition of terms in the Socratic tradition is required, isn’t it? Sensible people don’t just pop off and start calling the understanding of others sophomoric in the absence of such clarification as if these others could read their friggin’ minds, do they? I didn't say they were equivalent, I said they were intertwined and necessary for proper identification of one's actual stance. That’s what you meant. I know. But in trying to make me out to be someone who is not aware of the epistemological essence of agnosticism (as if any sensible person would believe that given the obvious caliber and the education behind the pieces authored by me on my blog!), you wrote “agnostics can be either theists or atheists.” That’s a rather confused, poorly expressed idea with regard to the one you were after, isn’t it? Instead, one might be an agnostic who leans toward theism or atheism, or one might be a theist or an atheist with an agnostic attitude toward certain conjectures regarding ultimate realities. Saying that “agnostics can be either theists or atheists” is not only nonsensical but blurs the distinction between “belief” and “knowledge.” It is you, not I, who confounded this distinction. I never once said anything about belief or disbelief with regard to agnosticism, as you errantly implied, whatsoever! Nor would I precisely because I do know what the essence of agnosticism is, isn’t that right, Mr. Agnostics-Can-Be-Either-Theists-Or- See how dishonestly can get one all tangled up in error. Oh what tangle webs we weave. . . . Go ahead and delude yourself, but I assure you that my mind is quite actively alive and versatile. It’s got plenty of spring and elasticity, and it doesn’t tolerate the sort of categorical and grammatical errors blathered by you. Yeah, that’s right, you attempted to impugn my intelligence by assigning strawman to me! Instead, you got yourself all tangled up in obvious categorical and grammatical errors, didn’t ya? I don’t knowingly argue against strawmen, strawman. You’re full of straw. Bottom line: I missed your earlier clarification. That is all that happened here. The rest of your natterings were the silly categorical and grammatical errors of one trying to dishonestly attribute stupidities to another that were never thought, never uttered, never imagined, when all you had to say was: “Hey, you missed my earlier clarification; I’m an atheist with agnostic leanings in regard to ultimate origin.” Get this through your thick skull: there’s absolutely nothing profound, amazing or new about that. It’s a simple matter. In my sleep, with both sides of my brain tied behind my back. Move on, and I’ll make no more mention of this foolishness of yours. Side: Atheism is just a load of crap
-2
points
And let's play this one again. . . . Sure I do. I know, for instance, that Anselm's was so poorly structured that even Aquinas disputed and disregarded it. False. Aquinas, like others, argued that Anselm’s argument was simply not a conclusive proof in the existential sense, as existence is not an ordinary property. The criticism goes: Anselm’s argument is analytic, not synthetic. Aquinas did not disregard Anselm’s argument, let alone reject it. He demonstrated that it was actually a proof that further undermined atheism, that the construct of divinity was not subject to infinite regression. (The fact of the matter is that Moses, Isaiah, Christ and Paul had already shown this too.) Anselm, like Descartes, simply concluded that anything less than actuality could not be the greatest conceivable thing; hence, God must exist. That’s a perfectly rational conclusion, just not a conclusive proof. Aquinas admired the analytic aspect of Anselm’s argument and asserted his own version of it to infinite regression. As such, neither his nor Anselm’s version can be countered. To say that Anselm’s argument is poorly structured is to say that you really don’t grasp the matter at all. Anselm’s argument with regard to its synthetic aspect holds up in terms of logical probability. Aquinas, Kant, Hume and others merely showed that it cannot be asserted beyond logical probability. That’s all. They don't prove it at all because they are completely reliant on human understanding. Assuming linear sequencing of events is as we observe it, then all they "prove" is that something was there, uncreated, at the beginning. This something can violate certain universal rules only because it preceded them. Whether it continued to do so after the Big Bang, whether it even existed after the Big Bang, whether it acts with intelligence and intent, are all untouchable and unprovable by ontological arguments. This is nonsense, and amazingly someone keeps giving you points for your stupidities. It is you who is trying to raise a teleological argument, an incoherent stream of meaningless blather, against inescapable ontologicals. Either something has always existed or something can arise from nothing. There is no violation of any apprehensible universal in holding that the latter option is inexplicably absurdity. The principle of causality is inescapable. Period. Science necessarily presupposes causality. Period. And there isn’t but two alternatives with regard to origin: inanimateness or consciousness. Period. Whether it continued to do so after the Big Bang, whether it even existed after the Big Bang, whether it acts with intelligence and intent, are all untouchable and unprovable by ontological arguments. Uh-huh. Meaning what? Ontological arguments are not proofs of God’s existence are they? Isn’t that what I just told ya, ya dummy? They’re proofs regarding the problem of origin and, subsequently, the objective existence and nature of the construct of God, and clearly the cause you’re describing in this instance could not possibly be the divinity of universal understanding, but would be something less than God. Ya dummy, you didn’t just overthrow any ontological. You just proved them. They cannot be countered. The ontoloigcals of being: 1. Something has always existed. 2. The principle of causality is inescapable. 3. The irreducible primary of being are inanimateness or consciousness. 4. One or the other is the origin of all things. 5. Materiality cannot escape infinite regression. 6. There is only one construct of being known to man that does: God, a necessarily indivisible and immutable entity, an eternally self-subsistent spirit of pure consciousness Who has no beginning and has no end. 7. The possibility of God’s existence cannot be rationally denied. As a guess. And one with little substantiation and no necessity. Right. Oh, wait a minute! Materiality cannot escape infinite regression, can it, and the assertion of atheism is inherently self-negating isn’t it? Little substantiation, no necessity, eh? Bong! Sorry. Logical probability begs to differ with ya, genius. Please tell me that you aren't trying to claim that the very fact we are discussing this is somehow some proof of God's existence. Shut up. You know very well I’m not arguing that. Come out from behind that undeniable fact of God’s possibility so we can see the irrationality that atheism is, ya little pissant. Go ahead deny God’s existence again. I love it when the atheist admits he has to acknowledge the undeniable possibility God’s existence in the very act of denying there be any substance behind the undeniable possibility of God’s existence. I wrote: “Atheism is not only inherently contradictory standing on its own, it violates Occam’s razor.” You write: “No. You violate Occam's Razor when you add steps that are both unprovable and unnecessary.” LOL! It just gets better and better. So explain it to us again, genius. Atheism, riddled with inherent contradiction, can’t even get off the ground without negating itself in its very denial of the undeniable possibility of God’s existence, but it doesn’t violate Occam’s Razor? This point I really want you to support. Like a link or something. I would be curious to see it for myself. I don’t need a link. Any divisible entity may be divided without end, though not by any finite mind: a mathematical axiom of infinity. The number line has no beginning and no end. Indeed, it’s riddle with infinities. In terms of real numbers, what’s the distance between the integer 1 and 2, 2 and 3, 3 and 4, 4 and 5, 5 and 6, 6 and 7, 7 and 8, 8 and 9 . . . ? What’s the difference between the geometric forms of human consciousness and the reproduction of them by human beings in the material world? Answer: Perfection. Squaring the circle? Pi? If something fails to present itself indisputably, then it is intellectually dishonest and irrational to positively assert their existence as anything more than a possibility. Right. As if the calculi of sensory perception would be of any real practical use to us at all without the rational and mathematical axioms of cognition, beginning with the first principles of being, all of which point to and scream God’s existence. Side: Atheism is just a load of crap
1
point
-2
points
You keep repeating the same stupid arguments that have already been utterly destroyed. It’s easier to copy and paste. Just copy and paste you’re same stupid arguments, and I’ll copy and paste my same annihilations of them. What are you complaining about? You don’t have to keep retyping your stupidities as if they were something new. As for Ashman, I thought you might want to try. He gave up on the real issue once it finally dawned on him that what the ontologicals prove is that there is no rational support for atheism whatsoever. He stopped playing the game and stupidly asked how science would prove religion. How does science prove religion? A stupid, meaningless, absurd question. That's the likes of the dimwits giving you points! LOL! Congratulations. Side: Atheism is just a load of crap
-2
points
And now that you're finally caught up with the real issue all along. This was addressed to Ashman's silliness. It's in English. The ontological arguments of theology are not proofs of God's existence. I never said they were. They are proofs regarding the existence and the nature of the construct of God. Taken together, (1) they demonstrate the objective existence and nature of the divine construct; (2) they demonstrate that the idea of God, unlike the material realm of being, is not subject to infinite regression; (3) they demonstrate that unlike the counter assertion of atheism, one can in fact positively assert that God is or must be without violating the rules of logic; (4) they cannot be countered as they are inherently self-evident and axiomatic. Hence, if God does not exist, what we have are a collection of axioms that are cogent, yet gratuitous and paradoxical, and that's before we even get to the mathematical proofs of infinitely and perfection in terms of calculi and geometric forms. Agnosticism is not atheism. Agnosticism asserts "I don't know." Atheism asserts "There is no God." The latter is not rational. Period. It has absolutely no logical basis on which to stand whatsoever, and its assertion is inherently self-negating. If it's true, it's true in spite of logic, not because of it. That's the point. On the other hand, one can positively assert God's existence without violating the rules of logic. Now. You're response to that is to say that's not the same thing as a "conclusive proof" of God existence. For crying out loud! I never said it was. The topic of this debate it not whether or not God's existence can be conclusively proven based on the first principles of being or from empirical data, the topic goes to the observation that atheism has not one single iota of logic to stand on while the conclusion of theism does in spades. Ashman: you say the existence of God cannot be rationally denied but neither can it be rationally proven. But it can be rationally asserted, unlike the counter! The argument for God’s existence is by far more powerfully supported by the classic laws of logic, i.e., identity’s comprehensive expression, whilst atheism violates them at every turn. There’s no burden on me. You’re imagining things. From the very beginning, virtually everyone of you have missed the point entirely. I’ve made my case. The rest of you are trying to claim that you can see the atheist’s logic or that the atheist’s position has logic. Oh? What it is? What could it possibly be given the fact that the atheist’s argument cannot even get off the ground without admitting that the possibility of God’s existence cannot be rationally denied in the first place? A. God exists = no contradiction. Is it true? B. God doesn’t exist = contradiction, paradox, gratuitous axioms. Nonetheless, is it true? Well, how do sensible people normally resolve such matters in terms of logic and probability? Do they opt for the problematic solution? No. Of course not. Hmm. Why when it comes to God do some people get all goofy and stupid, start betting on the problematical outcome? All other things being equal, no sensible person would bet on the problematical outcome in finance or investment. Clearly, the more reasonable and more likely conclusion is “A” by the normal standards of logic and probability. As the inspired writers of the Bible, Aristotle, Plato, Augustine, Aquinas, Calvin, Descartes, Locke, Berkeley and many others have shown, God would necessarily be an entity that is eternally self-subsistent, indivisible and immutable, a spirit of pure consciousness. To what faculty would He ultimately appeal? To that of our senses or to that of our reason? The conclusion that God must be is not derived from faith, but reason. Side: Atheism is just a load of crap
-2
points
-2
points
7
points
-3
points
5
points
0
points
3
points
An argument? I hope your joking. This is an ignorant blowhard retard theist spewing shit out his mouth. Profanity? 1, dick isn't a swear. And 2, I'm sorry I hurt your virgin ears. I don't have a local strip club. I have a girlfriend and I banged her yesterday at 3:48ish pm EST. fuck off Side: Atheism knows everthing
-2
points
3
points
Warning, do not feed the troll whose obvious plagiarism is obvious. Really. The same words in the same sequence that sound like they came from a textbook followed by a few lines of obviously less well considered counter argument to tie them to the textbook jargon. I love people like you, because you endeavour to make people feel stupid by using unnecessarily big and complicated words, but at the same time, you showcase your obvious shortcomings. If you're going to pretend to be better than the people you insult, you had better be perfect and you're far from. Finally, your argument about the irreducible primary of inanimateness/consciousness consequently proving the existence of God is interpreting facts to support your own conclusions. As much as there is the POSSIBILITY that God could exist, there is the irrefutable contrary, where God may NOT exist. PS. you fail pretty hard at making unbiased debate points. Funniest part about the debate, is you can see a MASSIVE difference between your ideas (see titles of views) and the ideas you plagiarized (Your overtechnical textbook speech) Anyone who has their own opinion, doesn't need that much jargon that is unintelligible to some readers. Granted, by reading what you copy, i do learn new words, but I also find that your application of them is misleading, suggesting that you don't actually know what you're talking about and are just spouting encyclopedic passages from your favourite theological propaganda office. Side: Atheism knows everthing
I wouldn't go as far as to say Atheism knows everything the same way as I would never say religion knows everything. According to the Bible God gave mankind free will it could be argued that questioning what religion teaches instead of following blindly is using the free will that God gave you, if that questioning leads to Atheism maybe that was the path God intended for that person, who knows I certainly don't and I'm sure the creator of this debate doesn't because if he was that enlightened he would not be insulting people because of their beliefs (or in this case non beliefs). Debates like this do nothing but insult both Atheists and Religious people,Atheists directly and religious people indirectly because it makes them look like intolerant bigots Side: Atheism knows everthing
-2
points
1
point
1
point
Do you even know what Superstition means? Here i'll post it for you su·per·sti·tion [soo-per-stish-uh n] noun 1. a belief or notion, not based on reason or knowledge, in or of the ominous significance of a particular thing, circumstance, occurrence, proceeding, or the like. Yep a belief in Scientific theory has absolutely no reason or knowledge irrationalism Yeah because science is not logical at all savagery Yep science is so uncivilized. Side: Atheism knows everthing
0
points
Do I know what “superstition” means? LOL! What are tard you are. Exhibit A: the limits of sensory perception and the limits of scientific inquiry = the limits of existence. Science? If you're not talking about empirical data, you're not talking about science, ya backward, irrational, superstitious savage of pseudo-scientific blather, and reason and knowledge are not limited to the boundaries of sensory perception, ya ignorant, superstitious yahoo. These things are self-evident. So when’s this hypothesis of yours--science proves there is no God--up for peer review? I want to be sure to be present so I can join in the laughter. Side: Atheism is just a load of crap
1
point
Oh, look here, Ma, we got ourselves a tard literalist who believes in the superstition of atheism and scienticism. Don't ever try to write poetry, boy, or analogical prose. You'll hurt yourself and others. Atheism, abiogenesis: superstition, tard, superstition. It is true, that a little philosophy inclineth man's mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men's minds about to religion; for while the mind of man looketh upon second causes scattered, it may sometimes rest in them, and go no further; but when it beholdeth the chain of them confederate, and linked together, it must needs fly to Providence and Deity. —Sir Francis Bacon Freedom, and not servitude, is the cure of anarchy; as religion, and not atheism, is the true remedy for superstition. —Edmund Burke Side: Atheism is just a load of crap
That still does not make Atheism superstitous the existence of God cannot be proven or disproven if an Atheist decides not to believe in something that cannot be proven to them that just meens they have chosen to believe in what is scientifically proven. Someone who is religous who has chosen to believe in something purely on faith in stories they have read that are many years old and things they have been told. If either of these are superstitous its the religous that is closer to superstition. Side: Atheism knows everthing
-1
points
First, you're talking about scientific proof for something that is immaterial! Second, you've never thought any of this through: there is no rational ground for atheism, and the idea of God is derived from reason, not faith. And faith is not necessarily devoid of reason or knowledge. Side: Atheism is just a load of crap
0
points
False. There is no rational ground for atheism. And your nonsense about "conclusive proof" begs the question and implies something I've never argued. No. You answer my question first. How is it rational to say there is no God? More at, what does the atheist necessarily acknowledged in the very act of denying there be no God? Can you answer that question? It’s self-evident. Side: Atheism is just a load of crap
I've already said why someone might choose not to believe in God your the one arguing that belief in God is rational and Atheism is irrational if you cant prove the existence of God prove why believing in him is rational and not believing is irrational. Side: Atheism knows everthing
0
points
So you won't acknowledge what the atheist must necessarily acknowledge in his denial, eh? You get nothing more from me, ya dishonest little dink. I’m not repeating myself. Look in the posts in the above. You’re just going to pretend you don’t see it, eh? I’ve already shown the inherently contradictory, self-negating nature of the atheist’s bald assertion. For crying out loud, you idiots. This observation is thousands of years old in the history of thought. Even the atheist thinkers of the classic era acknowledged that they had to assert an irrationality/a paradox in order to assert their position. From there they merely asserted an epistemological relativism as a means of justification. if you cant prove the existence of God prove why believing in him is rational and not believing is irrational. Shut up, ya little creep. It’s been proven for centuries that atheism is inherently irrational. I’ve proven it here. Read the other post in the above! You little punks, just won’t acknowledge the truth of it. SAY IT OUT LOUD SO EVERYONE CAN HERE YOU: THE ATHEIST NECESSARILY HAS TO ADMIT THAT THE IDEA OF GOD OBJECTIVELY EXISTS IN AND OF ITSELF AND, THEREFORE, THE POSSIBLITY OF GOD’S EXISTENCE CANNOT BE RATIONALLY DENIED. That’s point one. Now, are you going to refute that or not? No. Because you can’t, can you? Side: Atheism is just a load of crap
You have yet to post anything that proves anything all you do when someone disputes you is resort to insults not the best tactic if you want to be taken seriously in a debate, you say the existence of God cannot be rationally denied but neither can it be rationally proven which was my original point. You say you are no longer going to debate me on this subject which makes me think you don't have any rational arguments Side: Atheism knows everthing
0
points
Prove what? The ontological arguments of theology are not proofs of God's existence. I never said they were. They are proofs regarding the existence and the nature of the construct of God. Taken together, (1) they demonstrate the objective existence and nature of the divine construct; (2) they demonstrate that the idea of God, unlike the material realm of being, is not subject to infinite regression; (3) they demonstrate that unlike the counter assertion of atheism, one can in fact positively assert that God is or must be without violating the rules of logic; (4) they cannot be countered as they are inherently self-evident and axiomatic. Hence, if God does not exist, what we have are a collection of axioms that are cogent, yet gratuitous and paradoxical, and that's before we even get to the mathematical proofs of infinitely and perfection in terms of calculi and geometric forms. Agnosticism is not atheism. Agnosticism asserts "I don't know." Atheism asserts "There is no God." The latter is not rational. Period. It has absolutely no logical basis on which to stand whatsoever, and its assertion is inherently self-negating. If it's true, it's true in spite of logic, not because of it. That's the point. On the other hand, one can positively assert God's existence without violating the rules of logic. Now. You're response to that is to say that's not the same thing as a "conclusive proof" of God existence. For crying out loud! I never said it was. The topic of this debate it not whether or not God's existence can be conclusively proven based on the first principles of being or from empirical data, the topic goes to the observation that atheism has not one single iota of logic to stand on while the conclusion of theism does in spades. you say the existence of God cannot be rationally denied but neither can it be rationally proven But it can be rationally asserted, unlike the counter! The argument for God’s existence is by far more powerfully supported by the classic laws of logic, i.e., identity’s comprehensive expression, whilst atheism violates them at every turn. There’s no burden on me. You’re imagining things. From the very beginning, virtually everyone of you have missed the point entirely. I’ve made my case. The rest of you are trying to claim that you can see the atheist’s logic or that the atheist’s position has logic. Oh? What it is? What could it possibly be given the fact that the atheist’s argument cannot even get off the ground without admitting that the possibility of God’s existence cannot be rationally denied in the first place? A. God exists = no contradiction. Is it true? B. God doesn’t exist = contradiction, paradox, gratuitous axioms. Nonetheless, is it true? Well, how do sensible people normally resolve such matters in terms of logic and probability? Do they opt for the problematic solution? No. Of course not. Hmm. Why when it comes to God do some people get all goofy and stupid, start betting on the problematical outcome? All other things being equal, no sensible person would bet on the problematical outcome in finance or investment. Clearly, the more reasonable and more likely conclusion is “A” by the normal standards of logic and probability. As the inspired writers of the Bible, Aristotle, Plato, Augustine, Aquinas, Calvin, Descartes, Locke, Berkeley and many others have shown, God would necessarily be an entity that is eternally self-subsistent, indivisible and immutable, a spirit of pure consciousness. To what faculty would He ultimately appeal? To that of our senses or to that of our reason? The conclusion that God must be is not derived from faith, but reason. Side: Atheism is just a load of crap
0
points
Hello! Ashman, do ya hear me now? Do you follow me now? Have I finally got your full attention now? There cannot be any rational or logical basis for an assertion that cannot even get off the ground in the very first place, can there? And behold: the axioms of theology are many and can be positively asserted without any logical problem whatsoever! Atheism = there is no God, which inherently, in and of itself, necessarily admits that the possibility of God's existence cannot be rationally denied. But we know the universe exists for sure and might have always existed; hence, the atheist (there is no God, which necessarily admits the possibility cannot be rationally denied) holds there is no God. Bong. Sorry, Mr. Atheist, your assertion was logically dead in the water before you ever got to your "hence." Zoom! Right over! But we know the universe exists for sure and might have always existed; hence, the atheist (there is no God, which necessarily admits the possiblity cannot be rationally denied) holds there is no God. Bong. Sorry, Mr. Atheist, your assertion was logically dead in the water before you ever got to your "hence." Zoom! Right over! Side: Atheism is just a load of crap
Im sorry but your talking bollocks, yes the universe and the existence of the Earth could point towards the existence of a deity but then the scientific community has also supplied theories which make sense as well which could point in the direction of a deity being non existent you cannot stand firm on the derision of one whilst supporting the other. You agree that the existence of God is not proveable but the theory of the existence of the God construct is logical. You have also referred a few times to the Bible so I am guessing your a Christian, if you are what makes you think the Christian God is the correct one. Side: Atheism is just a load of crap
0
points
I'm sorry, but you're making baby talk to a man who knows the science very well. There is no science, theory of otherwise, that can lift materiality out of the abyss of infinite regression or even begin to account for the origin of life. What is this theory that points "in the direction of a deity being non existent"? You're full of pseudo-scientific crap. What's this magic you're babbling about? Put a name to it, put it in evidence. You're talking rank stupidity! Science necessarily presupposes causality. It cannot and does not negate the necessity of causality. It does not now show nor shall it ever be able to show that transcendence it not necessary for the existence of materiality. IDIOT! Are you going to refute that or not? Yes or no? You agree that the existence of God is not proveable but the theory of the existence of the God construct is logical. I agreed to no such thing. I never said that God's existence could not be proven. I said that ontological arguments are not proofs of God's existence, but proofs of atheism’s irrationalism and the logical probability of God's existence. Are you going to refute that? Yes or no? You’ve admitted that the possibility of God’s existence cannot be rationally denied, so what is this logic of atheism you were babbling about earlier? Are you going to explain this? Yes or no? No. You have been routed on every point. You are a liar who cares more about your silly ass pride than you do about the truth. Now put up or shut up. I want to here about these theories of yours that supposedly overthrow the necessity of God. Speak up. I can’t hear you. Side: Atheism knows everthing
You say you know science and say that Atheism is Pseudo Science Crap but all you spout is Pseudo Science crap yourself, you refuse to answer any argunents sensibly just gabble out a load of big words peppered with insults. Its about time you grew up and accepted people have other views to yourself. I note you avoided my question about religion what part of your scientific methods prove the religion you follow is the right one? Side: Atheism is just a load of crap
-2
points
Name calling again is this you default setting when people ask you something you can't answer or your previous arguments can't support, you say science can't deal with the spiritual which negates all of your previous arguments which said Science supports the God construct and belief in God. I note you also have ignored the question I actually asked. Its been fun Side: Atheism is just a load of crap
0
points
0
points
By the way, are you paying attention to the wrecking ball I'm wielding against the abject stupidities of the others? Why are there deductions on any of my posts? Idiots are attacking arguments that cannot be countered. Yes. I say idiots. Atheists. Irrational twits. LOL! Atheists lie to themselves and others all the time. What bunch of dweebs: yeah, sure, take points form irrefutable arguments. That makes sense. Side: Atheism is just a load of crap
0
points
0
points
Back to name calling what happened to your superior intellect? I think I might have touched a nerve there. How do you know your the only Theist because no-ones agreeing with you? Its strange how none of the Theists on the site are willing to support you on this one. Side: Atheism knows everthing
-2
points
-1
points
2
points
0
points
Yeah, God doesn't exist. There's your bald declaration. In the meantime it's the sheer utterance of fanaticism. Explain it to me again. The limits of sensory perception and scientific inquiry = God doesn't exist. And how does that bit of pseudo-scientific claptrap work? Let's see. There is no God because all that exists is empirical. Look, Ma, no hands on my circular, tautological redundancy. Atheism: I could have had a V-8, but opted for a lobotomy. Side: Atheism is just a load of crap
1
point
And clearly you haven't read what I've said to you. No surprise since your tactics are useless without strawmen. Yeah, God doesn't exist. There's your bald declaration. Except I have not said that. In fact, I said more than once that my whole method is to expose the lack of rationality behind supposed lines of evidence. It isn't that I believe there is no God. Its that I've seen no evidence in his support that doesn't have gaping wholes in logic and reason. There is no line of evidence that I've come across that removes the necessity for faith in the assertion. As far as tautology, ontological "proofs" and biblical authority are both outstanding examples of the concept. Failing to believe in something because hard proof has not been provided is not tautology, its common sense. Side: Atheism knows everthing
0
points
Hogwash. There are no gapping holes. More bald declarations. You don't even know what the ontological arguments of theology are. They're not proofs of God's existence. They’re proofs regarding the objective existence and nature of the construct of God, and unlike the ontological arguments of atheism and the material realm of being, they cannot be rationally negated and they prove that the construct of divinity is not subject to infinite regression. They are self-evident, irrefutable axioms. Any attempt to refute them results in their affirmation; i.e., the atheist necessarily acknowledges their objectively inherent cogency and, thereby, negates his own argument. It’s your ignorance and unexamined thought processes that are on display here. The idea of God is in and of itself in terms of origin is not derived from faith, but reason, and its positive assertion does not violate the rules of logic. The reason for this is also self-evident. For the positive affirmation of God does not deny the existence of anything, but merely goes to the issue of origin. Try doing that with atheism, and what do you get? An irrational assertion that inherently acknowledges the undeniable possibility in its very denial that there be any substance behind the idea. Further, if God doesn’t exist, what we have are a number of cogent axioms, including a number of mathematical axioms, that are nonetheless gratuitous and paradoxical. Atheism is not only inherently contradictory standing on its own, it violates Occam’s razor. So what do atheists do? They try to assert that the stuff of sensory perception and scientific inquiry are the limits of existence. Bong. Irrational. Non-sequitur. Pseudo-scientific claptrap. That doesn’t hold up to reason either. Side: Atheism is just a load of crap
2
points
You don't even know what the ontological arguments of theology are. Sure I do. I know, for instance, that Anselm's was so poorly structured that even Aquinas disputed and disregarded it. They're not proofs of God's existence. They’re proofs regarding the objective existence and nature of the construct of God, and unlike the ontological arguments of atheism and the material realm of being, they cannot be rationally negated and they prove that the construct of divinity is not subject to infinite regression. They don't prove it at all because they are completely reliant on human understanding. Assuming linear sequencing of events is as we observe it, then all they "prove" is that something was there, uncreated, at the beginning. This something can violate certain universal rules only because it preceded them. Whether it continued to do so after the Big Bang, whether it even existed after the Big Bang, whether it acts with intelligence and intent, are all untouchable and unprovable by ontological arguments. For the positive affirmation of God does not deny the existence of anything, but merely goes to the issue of origin. As a guess. And one with little substantiation and no necessity. An irrational assertion that inherently acknowledges the undeniable possibility in its very denial that there be any substance behind the idea. Please tell me that you aren't trying to claim that the very fact we are discussing this is somehow some proof of God's existence. Atheism is not only inherently contradictory standing on its own, it violates Occam’s razor. No. You violate Occam's Razor when you add steps that are both unprovable and unnecessary. Further, if God doesn’t exist, what we have are a number of cogent axioms, including a number of mathematical axioms, that are nonetheless gratuitous and paradoxical. This point I really want you to support. Like a link or something. I would be curious to see it for myself. They try to assert that the stuff of sensory perception and scientific inquiry are the limits of existence. If something fails to present itself indisputably, then it is intellectually dishonest and irrational to positively assert their existence as anything more than a possibility. Side: Atheism knows everthing
0
points
Sure I do. I know, for instance, that Anselm's was so poorly structured that even Aquinas disputed and disregarded it. False. Aquinas, like others, argued that Anselm’s argument was simply not a conclusive proof in the existential sense, as existence is not an ordinary property. The criticism goes: Anselm’s argument is analytic, not synthetic. Aquinas did not disregard Anselm’s argument, let alone reject it. He demonstrated that it was actually a proof that further undermined atheism, that the construct of divinity was not subject to infinite regression. (The fact of the matter is that Moses, Isaiah, Christ and Paul had already shown this too.) Anselm, like Descartes, simply concluded that anything less than actuality could not be the greatest conceivable thing; hence, God must exist. That’s a perfectly rational conclusion, just not a conclusive proof. Aquinas admired the analytic aspect of Anselm’s argument and asserted his own version of it to infinite regression. As such, neither his nor Anselm’s version can be countered. To say that Anselm’s argument is poorly structured is to say that you really don’t grasp the matter at all. Anselm’s argument with regard to its synthetic aspect holds up in terms of logical probability. Aquinas, Kant, Hume and others merely showed that it cannot be asserted beyond logical probability. That’s all. They don't prove it at all because they are completely reliant on human understanding. Assuming linear sequencing of events is as we observe it, then all they "prove" is that something was there, uncreated, at the beginning. This something can violate certain universal rules only because it preceded them. Whether it continued to do so after the Big Bang, whether it even existed after the Big Bang, whether it acts with intelligence and intent, are all untouchable and unprovable by ontological arguments. This is nonsense, and amazingly someone keeps giving you points for your stupidities. It is you who is trying to raise a teleological argument, an incoherent stream of meaningless blather, against inescapable ontologicals. Either something has always existed or something can arise from nothing. There is no violation of any apprehensible universal in holding that the latter option is inexplicably absurdity. The principle of causality is inescapable. Period. Science necessarily presupposes causality. Period. And there isn’t but two alternatives with regard to origin: inanimateness or consciousness. Period. Whether it continued to do so after the Big Bang, whether it even existed after the Big Bang, whether it acts with intelligence and intent, are all untouchable and unprovable by ontological arguments. Uh-huh. Meaning what? Ontological arguments are not proofs of God’s existence are they? Isn’t that what I just told ya, ya dummy? They’re proofs regarding the problem of origin and, subsequently, the objective existence and nature of the construct of God, and clearly the cause you’re describing in this instance could not possibly be the divinity of universal understanding, but would be something less than God. Ya dummy, you didn’t just overthrow any ontological. You just proved them. They cannot be countered. The ontoloigcals of being: 1. Something has always existed. 2. The principle of causality is inescapable. 3. The irreducible primary of being are inanimateness or consciousness. 4. One or the other is the origin of all things. 5. Materiality cannot escape infinite regression. 6. There is only one construct of being known to man that does: God, a necessarily indivisible and immutable entity, an eternally self-subsistent spirit of pure consciousness Who has no beginning and has no end. 7. The possibility of God’s existence cannot be rationally denied. As a guess. And one with little substantiation and no necessity. Right. Oh, wait a minute! Materiality cannot escape infinite regression, can it, and the assertion of atheism is inherently self-negating isn’t it? Little substantiation, no necessity, eh? Bong! Sorry. Logical probability begs to differ with ya, genius. Please tell me that you aren't trying to claim that the very fact we are discussing this is somehow some proof of God's existence. Shut up, ya pathological liar. You know very well I’m not arguing that. Come out from behind that undeniable fact of God’s possibility so we can see the irrationality that atheism is, ya little pissant. Go ahead deny God’s existence again. I love it when the atheist admits he has to acknowledge the undeniable possibility God’s existence in the very act of denying there be any substance behind the undeniable possibility of God’s existence. I wrote: “Atheism is not only inherently contradictory standing on its own, it violates Occam’s razor.” You write: “No. You violate Occam's Razor when you add steps that are both unprovable and unnecessary.” LOL! It just gets better and better. So explain it to us again, genius. Atheism, riddled with inherent contradiction, can’t even get off the ground without negating itself in its very denial of the undeniable possibility of God’s existence, but it doesn’t violate Occam’s Razor? This point I really want you to support. Like a link or something. I would be curious to see it for myself. I don’t need a link. Any divisible entity may be divided without end, though not by any finite mind: a mathematical axiom of infinity. The number line has no beginning and no end. Indeed, it’s riddle with infinities. In terms of real numbers, what’s the distance between the integer 1 and 2, 2 and 3, 3 and 4, 4 and 5, 5 and 6, 6 and 7, 7 and 8, 8 and 9 . . . ? What’s the difference between the geometric forms of human consciousness and the reproduction of them by human beings in the material world? Answer: Perfection. Squaring the circle? Pi? If something fails to present itself indisputably, then it is intellectually dishonest and irrational to positively assert their existence as anything more than a possibility. Right. As if the calculi of sensory perception would be of any real practical use to us at all without the rational and mathematical axioms of cognition, beginning with the first principles of being, all of which point to and scream God’s existence. You just keep losing round after round. All kinds of things getting thrown at you that you’ve never considered before. Right? Side: Atheism is just a load of crap
3
points
Atheism is just a load crap crapped out by human crap about a bunch a crap that no one with an IQ above that of a small rash gives a crap about. So anyone who doubts that there is a higher power who is not in the material world is stupid? Great logic. Side: Atheism knows everthing
-1
points
0
points
No, genius. Wrong. Dead wrong. You're prattling pseudo-scientific claptrap. Ignorance. Spontaneous generation is the notion that natural forces allow life to arise from non-living material. God, by definition, would be life, informational life, the very essence and source of all other life, not non-life. Abiogenesis: the chemical organization of life via chance variation in the absence of prior information of any adequacy. Yeah. You hold onto that fairytale. Side: Atheism is just a load of crap
1
point
1
point
It just so happens that neither you or I were around at the creation of the world and neither of us saw how life started, thus, it is illogical to act like denying or confirming the existence of a higher power shows your intelligence and/or understanding of life. Side: Atheism knows everthing
0
points
Hush, child, I know a thing or two about the topic. You don't lecture me. I'll lecture you. http:// Side: Atheism is just a load of crap
1
point
2
points
-1
points
Yeah, it's crap alright. It's a big honkin' pile of crap. A bunch of idiots standing around on a huge pile of chance-variation crap pretending that their latest chance-variation crap of an opinion is the absolute last word on absolutely everything. Zoom! Right over their pointed heads. By what process of "angelization" could men have become cognizant of their random origins and spectators of all time and existence, as though from some superior and independent vantage-point? Do . . . [atheists], like so many other system-builders, desert the system of which they are the authors, claiming special cognitive principles that cannot be justified within the system? —Richard Spilsbury Zoom! Right over! Side: Atheism is just a load of crap
1
point
Atheism does not accept religions because there is no convincing evidence for their veracity. Atheistic skeptism is logical because the burden of proof always lies with the one asserting the claim. In the contrary, the religious people have been committing tons of logical fallacies throughout the two thousand years! Side: Atheism knows everthing
-2
points
No. Atheists don't believe God exists because they're idiots. It's as simple as that. For example, like moron, you're babbling about evidence, presumably empirical, for an entity that is not empirical. What a dingbat. I already beat ya'll down. Shut up! _____________________ The Hugh Hewitt Show Live Hugh: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome back to another edition of the Hugh Hewitt Show! I’ve got the one and only Mucka Rottweiler McCaw back with us again. So, how ya feelin’, Mucka? Mucka: Much better, thank you, a little shock therapy did the trick. Hugh: I read the piece in See What They’re Saying Now Magazine the other day, and I thought I’d get ya back here for a follow up. Mucka: That’s great. Thanks. Hugh: So you don’t actually concede the fact that the possibility of God’s existence can’t be rationally denied? Mucka: Not exactly. I concede only that it cannot be conclusively denied, at least not that I've seen. Hugh: So you’re splittin’ hairs? Mucka: Say what? Hugh: Never mind. You’re semantic charade is obvious. Mucka: Uh . . . Hugh: So the atheist doesn’t necessarily acknowledge the undeniable possibility of God’s existence in the very act of denying there be any substance behind . . . well, behind the undeniable possibility, the construct of divinity? Mucka: No. Just that until it can be completely and definitively ruled out, it would be dishonest to say that it has . . . Hugh: I’m sorry. Until what can be completely ruled out? Mucka: Uh . . . it. Hugh: It? Mucka: The possibility of God’s existence. Hugh: What God? Mucka: The one that can’t be ruled out. Hugh: And which one would that be precisely? Mucka: Hugh: Mucka? Mucka: Rottweilers! Hugh: Uh . . . right. Security, stand by. Precisely what idea of God are you saying cannot be ruled out or is not necessarily acknowledged by the atheist in his very denial? Surely you know what it is you’d have to be ruling out. Surely you don’t make it a habit of making claims about things you haven’t defined or don’t understand. Mucka: Uh . . . Gummy Bears? Hugh: You’re guessing? Mucka: Grape-flavored Gummy Bears? Hugh: Higher. Mucka: Florescent lights? Hugh: Higher. Mucka: You? Hugh: Now, Mucka, how could a finite creature like me be the Creator? Mucka: Nervous, deranged laughter Yeah, you’re right. Uh . . . me? Hugh: Same problem, only worse. Mucka: Rottweilers! Hugh: Look here, Mucka, anyone with an IQ above that of the smudge on your glasses can see that you’re a lying toad. So, first, shut up. Second, shut up again. Mucka: Shut up? Hugh: That’s right! Mucka: But . . . Hugh: Shut . . . Mucka: . . . I . . . Hugh: . . . your . . . Mucka: . . . think . . . Hugh: . . . piehole. Mucka: Hugh: Good. Now, let's move on. . . . I see that you make the incredible statement that the positive assertion that God must be “has the exact same logical problem” as that of hard atheism. Mucka: Problem? Hugh: Yeah. That’s what I thought. You unwittingly shifted from ontological analytics to teleological synthetics and knew the silly-ass rubes throwin’ ya bones wouldn’t notice, eh? Mucka: But . . . uh . . . I . . . I mean . . . Hugh: Stop sputtering. They’re rubes, and you’re a lying toad, aren’t you? Mucka: Rottweilers! Hugh: Of course, God’s existence can be readily asserted without violating the rules of logic, because it does not entail the denial of anything’s existence or a denial of any undeniable possibility whatsoever, but merely asserts the existence of the irreducible primary of consciousness in terms of origin, isn’t that right, Mucka? Mucka: Hugh: Earth to Mucka, isn’t that right? Mucka: Rottweilers chewing on my brain! Goo goo g’joob! Hugh: You also claim, mind you, in the face of the fact that hard atheism cannot be rationally asserted at all, that the universally self-evident, rational and mathematical ontologicals of being are not proofs of God’s existence. Mucka: That’s right! Hugh: That “God is never shown as anything more than a possibility”? Mucka: Ya damn skippy, ya theist bastard! Got ya there. Ya got inanimateness and consciousness. See? There’s your friggin’ alternatives of origin right there, ya theist bastard! Hugh: Indeed. That’s right. You also claim that the theist “repeatedly fails to recognize that there are always other, simpler, more potentially testable alternatives.” I believe those were your very words, isn’t that right, Mucka? Mucka: That’s right! Uh . . . did you just say indeed? Hugh: Indeed. Mucka: How’s that? Hugh: Indeed. It was this theist who pointed out to you that the irreducible primary of ontological being relative to the problem of origin includes the . . . uh . . . simplistic alternative of inanimate materiality, isn’t that right, Mucka? Mucka: Uh . . . Hugh: Isn’t that right? Mucka: But . . . I . . . uh . . . I mean . . . Hugh: Isn’t that right? Mucka: Uh . . . well . . . Hugh: You’re sputtering again, Mucka. Mucka: Uh . . . Hugh: You already agreed with this theist on that point, didn’t you, Mucka. Mucka: But . . . Hugh: Mucka, you’re a lying toad and a damn fool, aren’t you? Mucka: What just happened here? Hugh: Are you peeing your pants again, Mucka? Mucka: Oh hell . . . Hugh: Those shoes look expensive. Are they new? Mucka: Rottweilers chewing on my brain! Hugh: You sort of got lost when you claimed that the irreducible primary of consciousness relative to the problem of origin does not objectively exist in and of itself, didn’t you, Mucka? That’s the other alternative of the inescapable problem of origin. Mucka. My shoes are ruined. Hugh: The construct of divinity does impose itself on our minds without our willing that it do so, isn’t that right, Mucka? It’s the very same construct that cannot “be completely and definitively ruled out” at this time, as you put it, isn’t that right, Mucka? Mucka: I peed my pants. Hugh. Yes, indeed, Mucka, you peed your pants again. . . . And your shoes, they look expensive. Are they suede? Mucka: Two-hundred bucks down the toilet. Hugh: Almost literally so, Mucka. Mucka: Rottweilers! Big honkin’ Rottweilers! Hugh: Poor, Mucka, everybody knows Locke’s objection to Cartesian rationalism doesn’t hold up, that Hume is the true master of empiricism. Mucka: Huh? Hugh: Oh my! You didn’t know! How adorable. Still playing with the thought experiments of children and cultures and the conflation of the categorical distinction between theological abstracts and the rational-mathematical universals of ontology’s irreducible primaries? Still on that Lockean magical mystery detour, eh? Mucka: Gummy Bears? Hugh: I’m sorry, Mucka, no Gummy Bears for you. We’re well into the Kantian era of the analytic-synthetic dichotomy of the Cartesian-Humean synthesis, the philosophical foundation of quantum physics no less! Of course, Augustine, Aquinas and Calvin, the greatest theologians of all time, had already worked out the irreducible primaries as extrapolated from the Bible. Had Locke paid more attention to them, he could have avoided his error and not been superseded by Berkeley and then by Hume. Mucka: Cookies? Hugh: Sorry, Boo-boo, no cookies for you either, I’m afraid, for the construct of divinity is not a subjective abstract at the philosophical-mathematical level of apprehension at all, but an extrapolation of the objectively self-evident dichotomies of ontology’s irreducible primaries, and, sadly, “the pragmatic ones who are chiefly concerned with what they can definitively prove and work with” in your imaginary isolation would be the class retards, those stuck on sensory perception stupid, those who would apparently fail to grasp the inescapable implications of finiteness-infiniteness, divisibility-indivisibility, mutability-immutability, materiality-immateriality. . . . Mucka: I just made a boom-boom in my pants. Hugh: Poor, Mucka, you’re fallin’ apart at the seams, this whole farce of yours . . . Mucka: It’s those friggin’ Rottweilers chewing on my brain! Woof Hugh: Indeed, it’s the rational-mathematical imperatives of human cognition chewing on your brain, Mucka! Mucka: Woof Hugh: If your rather dull-witted and unimaginative tards of the static, tabula rasa paradigm had kept us stuck on sensory-perception stupid, we wouldn’t have had the Berkelean principle of motion, the philosophical precursor of general relativity. Mucka: I’m a know-nothing’ twit with Rottweilers chewing on my brain. Hugh: Are you an Objectivist loon, to boot, Mucka? Mucka: Woof Hugh: Ya sure talk like one. Mucka: Bite marks on my brain! Hugh: So it’s rational to argue that the greatest conceivable expression of cognition’s irreducible primaries of transcendence could be trumped? Mucka: Woof Hugh: By what exactly? Mucka: Finkledink! Hugh: Like Dawkins, with his risible line of teleological argumentation in The Blind Watchmaker, you’re a philosophical-theological illiterate, aren’t ya, Mucka? Mucka: I’m a damn fool! Hugh: Yeah, a damn buffoon of the new atheism arguing against strawmen, irrelevancies discarded centuries ago. Mucka: Just one Gummy Bear? Hugh: You unimaginative, closed-minded, bigoted ignoramus, the quantum vacuum is empty space! Mucka: Huh? Hugh: The whole point of Hawking, Krauss et al.’s desperate semantic hijinks of trying to make the gravitational energy of the vacuum of quantum physics out to be a metaphysical/existential nothingness just flies right over your head, doesn’t it, Mucka? Mucka: Huh? Hugh: They’re trying to negate the necessity of divinity by appealing to the energy of an existent comprised of intangible mass. For all we know its an interdimensional immateriality of transcendental proportions, ya friggin’ dolt! Mucka: Huh? Hugh: We’re venturing beyond the space-time continuum of our material senses into a realm of being that lies beyond the singularity. We can only quantify its effects from this side of things. It’s not our friggin’ senses with which we’re engaging it. We’re engaging it with the immaterial imperatives of cognition! Mucka: Huh? Hugh: You silly ass, general relativity and quantum mechanics don't undermine the construct and necessity of divinity at all; indeed, Berkeley and Kant anticipated that cosmological physicists would soon come to the realization that Newtonian physics break down at some point precisely because God must exist! Mucka: Huh? Hugh: Oh my, you didn't know this, eh? You don't grasp why that's so, do you, Mucka? Mucka: Huh? Hugh: Indeed, you stupidly and nonsensically asserted that that which would be an ontological immateriality would “likely not be immaterial if it actually existed”! Mucka: Huh? Hugh: Zoom! Right over your head, eh, Mucka? Mucka: Huh? Hugh: “And if it IS immaterial," you said, "its existence is going to be rather hard to verify without necessity”! Mucka: Huh? Hugh: You damn fool! Mucka: Huh? Hugh: The ultimate essence of neither a transcendent immateriality nor the materiality of an intangible mass is subject to direct scientific affirmation or falsification. Its all sheer mathematics! Mucka: Huh? Hugh: Berkeley and Kant understood that the heavy lifting in cosmological origins would be done by the rational-mathematical calculi of consciousness, not sensory perception, which is merely the grunt work of systematic verification. Mucka: Huh? Hugh: Deduction, you ignoramus! Not the inductive reasoning of a blank slate driven by sensory perception, you ignoramus! Deduction, Mucka! The closer we get to divinity! Deduction! The deductive reasoning of cognitive intuition and mathematics has to lead the way! Mucka: Huh? Hugh: Dawkins is not a physicist, Mucka. He doesn’t grasp the ramifications of the underlying philosophical paradigm on which general relativity and quantum mechanics rests, Mucka. Mucka: Huh? Hugh: Neither do the likes of Hawking and Krauss, really, but they instinctually perceive the hated specter of divinity lurking beyond the singularity, Mucka! Mucka: I just peed my pants again. Hugh: Someone wash this puddle of urine and boom booms down and toss it a bag of Gummy Bears. ______________________ Hugh: And we're back with Mucka, folks, well, sort of. We've washed him down and got him diapered. 'Course he's rolled up into a ball of catatonic incoherency on the floor . . . but he does have some Gummy Bears! So while we're not expecting a full recovery by any means, he's indicated with grunts that he's ready to go on. . . . We really don't care if it's good for his health or not given the lying ass toad that he is. Mucka: Gummy Bears! Hugh: So tell us, Mucka, do you understand why even the likes of Hawking and Kraus don’t grasp the ramifications of the philosophical paradigm on which general relativity and quantum physics rests? Mucka: Huh? Hugh: Just so. They’re standing on the shoulders of philosophical giants--Descartes, Berkeley, Hume, Kant--and on the shoulders of the theological giants who hammered out the primary irreducibles of ontology--Augustine, Aquinas and Calvin. No appreciation whatsoever. Mucka: Cookie? Hugh: Steve, toss that punk a cookie. Mucka: Coo. Hugh: They don’t read philosophy and theology, Mucka. They don’t think these guys can teach ’em anything, especially Krauss. The likes of Hawking and Krauss, these supposed geniuses think they’re above it all. They’re barbarians, really. Brilliant physicists to be sure, but, ultimately, of the knuckle-dragging-calculator variety without souls or the imagination to grasp the metaphysical implications of their ramblings beyond their next ragged exhalation of apostasy. They’re strictly second raters next to the likes of Copernicus, Galileo, Bacon and Newton. Stupidly, because they haven’t seriously considered the underlying metaphysics of their theorizing, these atheist barbarians are spouting pseudo-scientific claptrap about God as if it science. And if you look really close, you’re find they have no commonsense at all, spouting some of the most incredibly silly and incoherent crap about things outside their field. http://michaeldavidrawlings1.blogspot.com/2012/10/a-mountain-of-nothin-out-of-somethin-or.html http:// The biologists of atheism assure the physicists of atheism that we don’t need God for the origin of life, and the physicists of atheism assure the biologists of atheism that we don’t need God for the origin of the cosmos. In the meantime, general relativity and quantum physics point toward God. and the insurmountable barrier of information confronting microbiology screams God’s absolute necessity! Those of us who grasp the metaphysical implications of rational and empirical being, and know the science laugh our asses off at the slide-rule mentality of the new atheism. Side: Atheism is just a load of crap
2
points
0
points
1
point
0
points
-2
points
No. I'll school you, for it is atheism that is full of crap and irrationality, not the other way around, buddy. . . . __________________ The Hugh Hewitt Show Live Hugh: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome back to another edition of the Hugh Hewitt Show! I’ve got the one and only Mucka Rottweiler McCaw back with us again. So, how ya feelin’, Mucka? Mucka: Much better, thank you, a little shock therapy did the trick. Hugh: I read the piece in See What They’re Saying Now Magazine the other day, and I thought I’d get ya back here for a follow up. Mucka: That’s great. Thanks. Hugh: So you don’t actually concede the fact that the possibility of God’s existence can’t be rationally denied? Mucka: Not exactly. I concede only that it cannot be conclusively denied, at least not that I've seen. Hugh: So you’re splittin’ hairs? Mucka: Say what? Hugh: Never mind. You’re semantic charade is obvious. Mucka: Uh . . . Hugh: So the atheist doesn’t necessarily acknowledge the undeniable possibility of God’s existence in the very act of denying there be any substance behind . . . well, behind the undeniable possibility, the construct of divinity? Mucka: No. Just that until it can be completely and definitively ruled out, it would be dishonest to say that it has . . . Hugh: I’m sorry. Until what can be completely ruled out? Mucka: Uh . . . it. Hugh: It? Mucka: The possibility of God’s existence. Hugh: What God? Mucka: The one that can’t be ruled out. Hugh: And which one would that be precisely? Mucka: Hugh: Mucka? Mucka: Rottweilers! Hugh: Uh . . . right. Security, stand by. Precisely what idea of God are you saying cannot be ruled out or is not necessarily acknowledged by the atheist in his very denial? Surely you know what it is you’d have to be ruling out. Surely you don’t make it a habit of making claims about things you haven’t defined or don’t understand. Mucka: Uh . . . Gummy Bears? Hugh: You’re guessing? Mucka: Grape-flavored Gummy Bears? Hugh: Higher. Mucka: Florescent lights? Hugh: Higher. Mucka: You? Hugh: Now, Mucka, how could a finite creature like me be the Creator? Mucka: Nervous, deranged laughter Yeah, you’re right. Uh . . . me? Hugh: Same problem, only worse. Mucka: Rottweilers! Hugh: Look here, Mucka, anyone with an IQ above that of the smudge on your glasses can see that you’re a lying toad. So, first, shut up. Second, shut up again. Mucka: Shut up? Hugh: That’s right! Mucka: But . . . Hugh: Shut . . . Mucka: . . . I . . . Hugh: . . . your . . . Mucka: . . . think . . . Hugh: . . . piehole. Mucka: Hugh: Good. Now, let's move on. . . . I see that you make the incredible statement that the positive assertion that God must be “has the exact same logical problem” as that of hard atheism. Mucka: Problem? Hugh: Yeah. That’s what I thought. You unwittingly shifted from ontological analytics to teleological synthetics and knew the silly-ass rubes throwin’ ya bones wouldn’t notice, eh? Mucka: But . . . uh . . . I . . . I mean . . . Hugh: Stop sputtering. They’re rubes, and you’re a lying toad, aren’t you? Mucka: Rottweilers! Hugh: Of course, God’s existence can be readily asserted without violating the rules of logic, because it does not entail the denial of anything’s existence or a denial of any undeniable possibility whatsoever, but merely asserts the existence of the irreducible primary of consciousness in terms of origin, isn’t that right, Mucka? Mucka: Hugh: Earth to Mucka, isn’t that right? Mucka: Rottweilers chewing on my brain! Goo goo g’joob! Hugh: You also claim, mind you, in the face of the fact that hard atheism cannot be rationally asserted at all, that the universally self-evident, rational and mathematical ontologicals of being are not proofs of God’s existence. Mucka: That’s right! Hugh: That “God is never shown as anything more than a possibility”? Mucka: Ya damn skippy, ya theist bastard! Got ya there. Ya got inanimateness and consciousness. See? There’s your friggin’ alternatives of origin right there, ya theist bastard! Hugh: Indeed. That’s right. You also claim that the theist “repeatedly fails to recognize that there are always other, simpler, more potentially testable alternatives.” I believe those were your very words, isn’t that right, Mucka? Mucka: That’s right! Uh . . . did you just say indeed? Hugh: Indeed. Mucka: How’s that? Hugh: Indeed. It was this theist who pointed out to you that the irreducible primary of ontological being relative to the problem of origin includes the . . . uh . . . simplistic alternative of inanimate materiality, isn’t that right, Mucka? Mucka: Uh . . . Hugh: Isn’t that right? Mucka: But . . . I . . . uh . . . I mean . . . Hugh: Isn’t that right? Mucka: Uh . . . well . . . Hugh: You’re sputtering again, Mucka. Mucka: Uh . . . Hugh: You already agreed with this theist on that point, didn’t you, Mucka. Mucka: But . . . Hugh: Mucka, you’re a lying toad and a damn fool, aren’t you? Mucka: What just happened here? Hugh: Are you peeing your pants again, Mucka? Mucka: Oh hell . . . Hugh: Those shoes look expensive. Are they new? Mucka: Rottweilers chewing on my brain! Hugh: You sort of got lost when you claimed that the irreducible primary of consciousness relative to the problem of origin does not objectively exist in and of itself, didn’t you, Mucka? That’s the other alternative of the inescapable problem of origin. Mucka. My shoes are ruined. Hugh: The construct of divinity does impose itself on our minds without our willing that it do so, isn’t that right, Mucka? It’s the very same construct that cannot “be completely and definitively ruled out” at this time, as you put it, isn’t that right, Mucka? Mucka: I peed my pants. Hugh. Yes, indeed, Mucka, you peed your pants again. . . . And your shoes, they look expensive. Are they suede? Mucka: Two-hundred bucks down the toilet. Hugh: Almost literally so, Mucka. Mucka: Rottweilers! Big honkin’ Rottweilers! Hugh: Poor, Mucka, everybody knows Locke’s objection to Cartesian rationalism doesn’t hold up, that Hume is the true master of empiricism. Mucka: Huh? Hugh: Oh my! You didn’t know! How adorable. Still playing with the thought experiments of children and cultures and the conflation of the categorical distinction between theological abstracts and the rational-mathematical universals of ontology’s irreducible primaries? Still on that Lockean magical mystery detour, eh? Mucka: Gummy Bears? Hugh: I’m sorry, Mucka, no Gummy Bears for you. We’re well into the Kantian era of the analytic-synthetic dichotomy of the Cartesian-Humean synthesis, the philosophical foundation of quantum physics no less! Of course, Augustine, Aquinas and Calvin, the greatest theologians of all time, had already worked out the irreducible primaries as extrapolated from the Bible. Had Locke paid more attention to them, he could have avoided his error and not been superseded by Berkeley and then by Hume. Mucka: Cookies? Hugh: Sorry, Boo-boo, no cookies for you either, I’m afraid, for the construct of divinity is not a subjective abstract at the philosophical-mathematical level of apprehension at all, but an extrapolation of the objectively self-evident dichotomies of ontology’s irreducible primaries, and, sadly, “the pragmatic ones who are chiefly concerned with what they can definitively prove and work with” in your imaginary isolation would be the class retards, those stuck on sensory perception stupid, those who would apparently fail to grasp the inescapable implications of finiteness-infiniteness, divisibility-indivisibility, mutability-immutability, materiality-immateriality. . . . Mucka: I just made a boom-boom in my pants. Hugh: Poor, Mucka, you’re fallin’ apart at the seams, this whole farce of yours . . . Mucka: It’s those friggin’ Rottweilers chewing on my brain! Woof Hugh: Indeed, it’s the rational-mathematical imperatives of human cognition chewing on your brain, Mucka! Mucka: Woof Hugh: If your rather dull-witted and unimaginative tards of the static, tabula rasa paradigm had kept us stuck on sensory-perception stupid, we wouldn’t have had the Berkelean principle of motion, the philosophical precursor of general relativity. Mucka: I’m a know-nothing’ twit with Rottweilers chewing on my brain. Hugh: Are you an Objectivist loon, to boot, Mucka? Mucka: Woof Hugh: Ya sure talk like one. Mucka: Bite marks on my brain! Hugh: So it’s rational to argue that the greatest conceivable expression of cognition’s irreducible primaries of transcendence could be trumped? Mucka: Woof Hugh: By what exactly? Mucka: Finkledink! Hugh: Like Dawkins, with his risible line of teleological argumentation in The Blind Watchmaker, you’re a philosophical-theological illiterate, aren’t ya, Mucka? Mucka: I’m a damn fool! Hugh: Yeah, a damn buffoon of the new atheism arguing against strawmen, irrelevancies discarded centuries ago. Mucka: Just one Gummy Bear? Hugh: You unimaginative, closed-minded, bigoted ignoramus, the quantum vacuum is empty space! Mucka: Huh? Hugh: The whole point of Hawking, Krauss et al.’s desperate semantic hijinks of trying to make the gravitational energy of the vacuum of quantum physics out to be a metaphysical/existential nothingness just flies right over your head, doesn’t it, Mucka? Mucka: Huh? Hugh: They’re trying to negate the necessity of divinity by appealing to the energy of an existent comprised of intangible mass. For all we know its an interdimensional immateriality of transcendental proportions, ya friggin’ dolt! Mucka: Huh? Hugh: We’re venturing beyond the space-time continuum of our material senses into a realm of being that lies beyond the singularity. We can only quantify its effects from this side of things. It’s not our friggin’ senses with which we’re engaging it. We’re engaging it with the immaterial imperatives of cognition! Mucka: Huh? Hugh: You silly ass, general relativity and quantum mechanics don't undermine the construct and necessity of divinity at all; indeed, Berkeley and Kant anticipated that cosmological physicists would soon come to the realization that Newtonian physics break down at some point precisely because God must exist! Mucka: Huh? Hugh: Oh my, you didn't know this, eh? You don't grasp why that's so, do you, Mucka? Mucka: Huh? Hugh: Indeed, you stupidly and nonsensically asserted that that which would be an ontological immateriality would “likely not be immaterial if it actually existed”! Mucka: Huh? Hugh: Zoom! Right over your head, eh, Mucka? Mucka: Huh? Hugh: “And if it IS immaterial," you said, "its existence is going to be rather hard to verify without necessity”! Mucka: Huh? Hugh: You damn fool! Mucka: Huh? Hugh: The ultimate essence of neither a transcendent immateriality nor the materiality of an intangible mass is subject to direct scientific affirmation or falsification. Its all sheer mathematics! Mucka: Huh? Hugh: Berkeley and Kant understood that the heavy lifting in cosmological origins would be done by the rational-mathematical calculi of consciousness, not sensory perception, which is merely the grunt work of systematic verification. Mucka: Huh? Hugh: Deduction, you ignoramus! Not the inductive reasoning of a blank slate driven by sensory perception, you ignoramus! Deduction, Mucka! The closer we get to divinity! Deduction! The deductive reasoning of cognitive intuition and mathematics has to lead the way! Mucka: Huh? Hugh: Dawkins is not a physicist, Mucka. He doesn’t grasp the ramifications of the underlying philosophical paradigm on which general relativity and quantum mechanics rests, Mucka. Mucka: Huh? Hugh: Neither do the likes of Hawking and Krauss, really, but they instinctually perceive the hated specter of divinity lurking beyond the singularity, Mucka! Mucka: I just peed my pants again. Hugh: Someone wash this puddle of urine and boom booms down and toss it a bag of Gummy Bears. ______________________ Hugh: And we're back with Mucka, folks, well, sort of. We've washed him down and got him diapered. 'Course he's rolled up into a ball of catatonic incoherency on the floor . . . but he does have some Gummy Bears! So while we're not expecting a full recovery by any means, he's indicated with grunts that he's ready to go on. . . . We really don't care if it's good for his health or not given the lying ass toad that he is. Mucka: Gummy Bears! Hugh: So tell us, Mucka, do you understand why even the likes of Hawking and Kraus don’t grasp the ramifications of the philosophical paradigm on which general relativity and quantum physics rests? Mucka: Huh? Hugh: Just so. They’re standing on the shoulders of philosophical giants--Descartes, Berkeley, Hume, Kant--and on the shoulders of the theological giants who hammered out the primary irreducibles of ontology--Augustine, Aquinas and Calvin. No appreciation whatsoever. Mucka: Cookie? Hugh: Steve, toss that punk a cookie. Mucka: Coo. Hugh: They don’t read philosophy and theology, Mucka. They don’t think these guys can teach ’em anything, especially Krauss. The likes of Hawking and Krauss, these supposed geniuses think they’re above it all. They’re barbarians, really. Brilliant physicists to be sure, but, ultimately, of the knuckle-dragging-calculator variety without souls or the imagination to grasp the metaphysical implications of their ramblings beyond their next ragged exhalation of apostasy. They’re strictly second raters next to the likes of Copernicus, Galileo, Bacon and Newton. Stupidly, because they haven’t seriously considered the underlying metaphysics of their theorizing, these atheist barbarians are spouting pseudo-scientific claptrap about God as if it science. And if you look really close, you’re find they have no commonsense at all, spouting some of the most incredibly silly and incoherent crap about things outside their field. http://michaeldavidrawlings1.blogspot.com/2012/10/a-mountain-of-nothin-out-of-somethin-or.html http:// The biologists of atheism assure the physicists of atheism that we don’t need God for the origin of life, and the physicists of atheism assure the biologists of atheism that we don’t need God for the origin of the cosmos. In the meantime, general relativity and quantum physics point toward God. and the insurmountable barrier of information confronting microbiology screams God’s absolute necessity! Those of us who grasp the metaphysical implications of rational and empirical being, and know the science laugh our asses off at the slide-rule mentality of the new atheism. Side: Atheism is just a load of crap
1
point
0
points
0
points
0
points
0
points
1
point
2
points
0
points
|