Posted on 05/01/2011 7:24:18 AM PDT by Ethan Clive Osgoode
What do you think?
No, about the video, and its subject.
How do you define it?
It is basically logic or math. It is the ability to add one and one together and get two. Like I said, try it sometime and you might like it.
Other than Alinskyite auto-fellation, 'and' It's funny how atheists suck themselves off over their superiority:
Is that infantile projection on your part? Or latent homosexual desires? Inquiring minds want to know : )
and then resort to trivial bullsh*t to avoid answering similar questions on their *own* behalf.
I answered your question. You are the one projecting your own inadequacy when you claim that I didn't answer it.
You are more of a hypocrite than the Christians, for they at least can claim mercy from God; but there is NO mercy from the brights for intellectual failure or inconsistency.
Let me rephrase what I think you said. Christians can lie, cheat, steal, murder and be hypocrites because they can claim mercy from Jehovah or Elohim?
And because I might make a mistake I am condemned?
That seems suspiciously like you are saying that you can't sin because you are saved. I have met your type before : (
Otherwise, we wouldn't have had any disputes between flat-earthers and round-earthers.
And Aristotle's De Caelo would never have been written.
Is that infantile projection on your part? Or latent homosexual desires? Inquiring minds want to know : )
Neither one. It's an accurate depiction of the attitude of atheists.
I answered your question. You are the one projecting your own inadequacy when you claim that I didn't answer it.
Vague generalities are something you never accept from your disputants. But you are perfectly willing to proffer them without details, as though the airy toss-off is sufficient.
This is intellectual hypocrisy on your part.
Let me rephrase what I think you said. Christians can lie, cheat, steal, murder and be hypocrites because they can claim mercy from Jehovah or Elohim?
There is (in principle) according to Christian theology, hope even for a hypocrite to attain true repentance and forgiveness.
But in the purely intellectual realm, their is neither expiation nor anyone qualified, nor acknowledged in common by all "brights" to pronounce remission of intellectual sin.
And because I might make a mistake I am condemned?
According to the strictest dictates of the scientific method, yes. Try reading C.P. Snow's The Search.
That seems suspiciously like you are saying that you can't sin because you are saved. I have met your type before : (
No, you're putting words in my mouth. That's not my type.
Troll.
I don't believe in Allah either. I poke fun at you and them because you attack us. I didn't start this thread. This thread was started by a born Againer attacking Atheists.
Morality,....in the atheists' world cannot be accounted for. If so, justify immorality/morality in a Godless world.
Morality without God is easy to account for. It is the Prisoners Dilemma. The basic idea is that if you help others and work together you will be much better off. That is the basic "moral" principle that underlies all morality. In other words it is simply selfishness coupled with the understanding that helping and cooperating with others gets you more of whatever you want. That is why it is immoral to lie, steal, murder, etc. Those are all uncooperative acts, hence immoral.
Usually the man with the biggest guns' idea of morality prevailed, until a larger gun comes along.
Might makes Right violates the principle of cooperation, sadly it is often correct. Elohim gives many examples of that principle in his book, where he employs it against his enemies. Might Makes Right is obviously the premier Christian and Muslim morality.
Have you actually read the book and the theories that you are desperately trying to defend? Morality doesn't come from there.
First Cause is an interesting subject.
The Cosmological arguments are a family of arguments that seek to demonstrate the existene of a Sufficient Reason or First Cause of the existence of the cosmos. Defenders of First Cause have been Aristotle, Plato, al=Ghaziali, Maimonides, Anselm, Aquinas, Spinoza, Leibniz, Locke and many others. The arguent can be grouped into 3 basic types; the kalam cosmological arguments the Liebnizian cosmological argument from Sufficient Reason, and the Thomist cosmological for a sustaining Ground of Being of the the world.
Now, I will not go into other of these explainations but will deal with your narrow application of the cosmological argument supported by Einstein, Wilson and Penzias, Eddington, Smoot, WMAP, the second law....all pointing to a beginning, which is what I believe you were referencing. All of these scientist, and many more point to an undeniable conclusion that the universe BEGAN. Moreover they point out that the universe came to be from nothing. The Law of Causality which you reference states, "Everything which begins to exist had a cause. At that point of singularity, (that moment of beginning which we can take back to Planck Time, demand an answer as to what WAS that First Cause which gave rise to matter, energy, space, and time. What was prior to time which could be that first cause to bring forth the universe (approx. 10 seventyfifty subatomic particles) out of nothing. Remmeber Aristotle, upon asking 'what is nothing", he replied....."Nothing is what rocks dream about." In other words..no thing...no matter,...no space, to time,...no energy. Nothing! Well, using logic and reason we must conclude that something made a decision to bring something into being out of nothing, and therefore a personal decisionf was made (Persons make decision, not molecules) Something must have been incomprehensibly powerful to create the univere from nothing. Something must have been incredibly intelligent to have created order out of caos of that origin. Something must have been timeless to have existed outside of time (prior to the existence of the creation of time), or some would describe as transcendent of time. Now, I have not described these 'qualities', as you describe, from Biblical descriptions. These are characteristics derived from the conclusions from the studies of Einstein, Eddington, even Fred Hoyl, Wilson and Penzias, COBE, WMAP, Smoot, Jastrow, and many others. It is interesting to point out that these characteristics describing that FIRST CAUSE are the same characterics which Christian theologans have described for 2 centuries.
Regarding your question regarding the notion what God always existed. You must remember that time did not occur until that singularity. Prior to that singularity, and thus prior to time, God existed timelessly. Now, whether you subscribe to A-theory of time or B-theory of time the principle holds.
Now, I will concede that I am somewhat limited in my ability to understand with the comprehension which you demonstrate in your questioning. All I can say is I try to tell you the truth. I do find humor in one of your last sentences where you affirm the absurdity of how God would have created or not created the universe, while in the same breath denying his very existence. You might want to look up the term - ABSURDITY.
Your saying “nonsense” holds no meaning. Justify it in accordance with the physicalist, atheist, materialist, darwinists worldview.
You say you account for morality, but you only offer a vague definition. Account or justify them epistemologically and ontologically. A description of vageries is inadequet to warrant your belief. I am asking you to justify warranted true belief.
That's why we have a psychological defense mechanism called denial. :)
"justify warranted true belief? justify them epistemologically and ontologically."
You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of the Atheist position, it isn't based on belief, it is based evidence. Essentially you are asking me to justify your belief system, that can't be done.
Also you have neglected to answer my questions. Is this a discussion or are you simply trying to shout down my reasoned responses?
Oh, don't expect an answer anytime soon...a bucketful of invectives and insults, maybe, but an answer, and a sensible one...never.
PS. A corollary to your question: what did God eternally "do" before he began to do anything...hmmm?
PS. A corollary to your question: what did God eternally "do" before he began to do anything...hmmm?
God would have to exist outside of the Universe and God can obviously travel faster than the speed of light which means that all distance and time (for God) goes to zero. So eternity for God is simply a singularity.
God therefore doesn't exist in time and space (this Universe anyway).
Then I said, Please account for morality in a physicalists worldview episemologically and ontologically. Don't describe is as you idealize it in your head. Justify right and wrong, truth, justice, etc. epistemically and ontologically. Now, that is a simple request. From what did your godless morality spring from other than the mind of a man....sort of consensus of agreement?
Based upon evidence, as you say account for origen of the universe ontologically. Take it all the way back to it beginning and explain how.
Shout? No, I don't shout. Actually I have a sort of a sore throat today.
Agnosticism - the lack of knowing whether or not God exists.
The claim that "God does not exist", is just as much a claim of knowledge as the theist belief that "God exists".
You do well to remember that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. You cannot conflate atheism with agnosicism. The agnostic makes no claim. You as as an atheist have made the claim. Now, justify your claim epistemilogically and ontologically.
That would be "strong" atheism, whereas "weak" atheism is simply the lack of belief in god(s). I subscribe to the latter, myself...I don't *know* that a god or gods do not exist, but I have no belief that they do.
And I did account for morality apart from God. I also saw no refutation from you.
Then I said, Please account for morality in a physicalists worldview episemologically and ontologically.
No at the same time you asked "I am asking you to justify warranted true belief." Those are contradictions, you are obviously confused. I can't help you when you don't understand what you are asking. Why don't you define "Morality" and we will go from there.
Based upon evidence, as you say account for origen of the universe ontologically. Take it all the way back to it beginning and explain how.
Now you want to know how the Universe began? This must be your lucky day.
In the beginning was waves of nothing. Four waves to be exact, the strong wave, weak wave, electrical wave and the magnetic wave. These waves became a singularity for an instant and the resultant explosion was what we popularly call the Big Bang. After a few nanoseconds of inflation, the universe was created.
I even have a bonus answer for you. Since I can read your mind, you are going to call hogwash on the waves of nothing. But I assure you it is true, all matter is essentially waves of energy (Einstein showed that) and Schrodinger figured out how the wave functions collapsed. Q.E.D.
Your procurement of the definition of “weak atheism” as a default position is a relatively recent developement in terminology to avoid the subject. Retreating to agnosticism is a place to cower, but if you want to discuss the subject...step up.
I will take this time, only once to define morality. The Moral Law is based upon the premise that there is such a thing as right and wrong...there are things you "ought" do, and things you "ought not do". These "oughts' are based upon real, objective, standards. That standard is the very nature of God Himself. Yes, we do hold these truths self-evident, that all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It comes from Natural Law and that law was written on the heart of every man by the LawGiver. Objective morality is not one among many moral options. It is the very definition of morality. "Subjective Morality" is an oxymoron and is no morality at all. If men make up rules, they can change them upon a wim. A nonbinding morality is no morality at all.
But you already know this innately, don't you?
ping
Who *killed* the child?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.