Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Case Against the Existence of God
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 210 of 301 (302148)
04-07-2006 5:21 PM
Reply to: Message 207 by New Cat's Eye
04-07-2006 5:18 PM


Re: Satheism, Watheism
It doesn't have to have the attributes you described.
What attributes then might it have?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 207 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-07-2006 5:18 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 216 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-07-2006 5:30 PM robinrohan has not replied

ThingsChange
Member (Idle past 5926 days)
Posts: 315
From: Houston, Tejas (Mexican Colony)
Joined: 02-04-2004


Message 211 of 301 (302149)
04-07-2006 5:22 PM
Reply to: Message 203 by robinrohan
04-07-2006 5:09 PM


Much to do about Nothing
quote:
No, nothing can come from nothing. There always had to be something.
Wait a minute.
Why can't nothing be something?
Kind of like zero is a number just like -2,-1,1,2,3...
Maybe "nothing" is just a temporary "even" transition state between a negative and a positive condition. It would just appear that nothing lasted forever prior to what we know as something. (And we all know that nothing lasts forever! )
All we "know" is that something comes from something" based on our experience and tests of cause and effect.
You are in faith of speculation of any variant of "___ comes from ___".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by robinrohan, posted 04-07-2006 5:09 PM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 212 by robinrohan, posted 04-07-2006 5:26 PM ThingsChange has replied

robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 212 of 301 (302151)
04-07-2006 5:26 PM
Reply to: Message 211 by ThingsChange
04-07-2006 5:22 PM


Re: Much to do about Nothing
Why can't nothing be something?
You want to define it that way? Fine.
Why can't yes be no?
Why can't plus be minus?
This message has been edited by robinrohan, 04-07-2006 04:27 PM
This message has been edited by robinrohan, 04-07-2006 04:27 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by ThingsChange, posted 04-07-2006 5:22 PM ThingsChange has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 220 by ThingsChange, posted 04-07-2006 5:34 PM robinrohan has not replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 213 of 301 (302152)
04-07-2006 5:28 PM
Reply to: Message 209 by robinrohan
04-07-2006 5:21 PM


Re: Satheism, Watheism
So the universe came from the universe?
It could have came from something else and the something else doesn't have to be a god.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 209 by robinrohan, posted 04-07-2006 5:21 PM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 215 by robinrohan, posted 04-07-2006 5:30 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

JustinC
Member (Idle past 4844 days)
Posts: 624
From: Pittsburgh, PA, USA
Joined: 07-21-2003


Message 214 of 301 (302153)
04-07-2006 5:29 PM
Reply to: Message 208 by robinrohan
04-07-2006 5:18 PM


Re: Satheism, Watheism
quote:
Natural means? Does that not presuppose nature? How can you have a "natural means" without nature? That's option #2.
So say I think the universe arose from some mega-universe, or from some other existence that the term "universe" doesn't apply.
To this, I think you'd say that, "Well, that is option #2. It existed in some form, the mega-universe."
Well, how is that any different than supposing a God created the universe? Just as the mega-universe falls under category #2, wouldn't God also fall under that category? That is, if you think a mega-universe is the universe in "some form," why wouldn't God be the universe in "some form?"
I don't see a false dichotomy, I don't even see a dichotomy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 208 by robinrohan, posted 04-07-2006 5:18 PM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 219 by robinrohan, posted 04-07-2006 5:32 PM JustinC has replied

robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 215 of 301 (302154)
04-07-2006 5:30 PM
Reply to: Message 213 by New Cat's Eye
04-07-2006 5:28 PM


Re: Satheism, Watheism
It could have came from something else and the something else doesn't have to be a god.
Revert to option #2.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 213 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-07-2006 5:28 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 218 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-07-2006 5:31 PM robinrohan has not replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 216 of 301 (302155)
04-07-2006 5:30 PM
Reply to: Message 210 by robinrohan
04-07-2006 5:21 PM


Re: Satheism, Watheism
It doesn't have to have the attributes you described.
What attributes then might it have?
whatever, it just doesn't have to be the ones you described.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 210 by robinrohan, posted 04-07-2006 5:21 PM robinrohan has not replied

Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 217 of 301 (302156)
04-07-2006 5:31 PM
Reply to: Message 208 by robinrohan
04-07-2006 5:18 PM


Re: Satheism, Watheism
Natural means? Does that not presuppose nature? How can you have a "natural means" without nature? That's option #2.
Nope. The basic actions of cause and effect can easily exist before the universe comes into being. Even if they didn't, nothing would stop them from applying the very second the process starts.
But your response suggests that you're just defining your terms incredibly loosely... ie, "the universe" is everything that does not involve the supernatural, and "God" is anything supernatural, outside nature.
That would be a fun little semantic game, if you weren't trying to then shoehorn incredibly specific definitions onto the terms, and insist that you can still slot every possible answer into one of the two. Then it just becomes silly.
What are you talking about?
The fact that I hope you have a box of tissues nearby for when you finish your posts.

"We had survived to turn on the History Channel
And ask our esteemed panel, Why are we alive? And here's how they replied:
You're what happens when two substances collide
And by all accounts you really should have died."
-Andrew Bird

This message is a reply to:
 Message 208 by robinrohan, posted 04-07-2006 5:18 PM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 222 by robinrohan, posted 04-07-2006 5:40 PM Dan Carroll has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 218 of 301 (302157)
04-07-2006 5:31 PM
Reply to: Message 215 by robinrohan
04-07-2006 5:30 PM


Re: Satheism, Watheism
Revert to option #2.
forget it, I'm through wasting my time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 215 by robinrohan, posted 04-07-2006 5:30 PM robinrohan has not replied

robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 219 of 301 (302158)
04-07-2006 5:32 PM
Reply to: Message 214 by JustinC
04-07-2006 5:29 PM


Re: Satheism, Watheism
wouldn't God also fall under that category?
No.
God is a Being.
The universe is a thing.
Big difference.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 214 by JustinC, posted 04-07-2006 5:29 PM JustinC has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 221 by Dan Carroll, posted 04-07-2006 5:35 PM robinrohan has replied
 Message 229 by JustinC, posted 04-07-2006 5:55 PM robinrohan has not replied
 Message 249 by lfen, posted 04-07-2006 11:06 PM robinrohan has not replied

ThingsChange
Member (Idle past 5926 days)
Posts: 315
From: Houston, Tejas (Mexican Colony)
Joined: 02-04-2004


Message 220 of 301 (302159)
04-07-2006 5:34 PM
Reply to: Message 212 by robinrohan
04-07-2006 5:26 PM


Re: Much to do about Nothing
You misunderstand my point.
There are positive, negative AND neutral states for just about everything:
Yes, no, and neither (equivalent of nothing)
Plus, minus and zero
It took Arabs to "discover" the number zero, but it always was part of the number system. Previous folks just couldn't figure that out. Maybe the same is true with what we think of "substance" (i.e. when you refer to "something"). Maybe the Arabs will pull us out of this one too in a few hundred years.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by robinrohan, posted 04-07-2006 5:26 PM robinrohan has not replied

Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 221 of 301 (302160)
04-07-2006 5:35 PM
Reply to: Message 219 by robinrohan
04-07-2006 5:32 PM


Re: Satheism, Watheism
A being is a kind of thing.
Maybe I should have started simpler than a logical fallacy. Try this.

"We had survived to turn on the History Channel
And ask our esteemed panel, Why are we alive? And here's how they replied:
You're what happens when two substances collide
And by all accounts you really should have died."
-Andrew Bird

This message is a reply to:
 Message 219 by robinrohan, posted 04-07-2006 5:32 PM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 225 by robinrohan, posted 04-07-2006 5:49 PM Dan Carroll has not replied

robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 222 of 301 (302162)
04-07-2006 5:40 PM
Reply to: Message 217 by Dan Carroll
04-07-2006 5:31 PM


Re: Satheism, Watheism
Nope. The basic actions of cause and effect can easily exist before the universe comes into being. Even if they didn't, nothing would stop them from applying the very second the process starts.
But your response suggests that you're just defining your terms incredibly loosely... ie, "the universe" is everything that does not involve the supernatural, and "God" is anything supernatural, outside nature.
That would be a fun little semantic game, if you weren't trying to then shoehorn incredibly specific definitions onto the terms, and insist that you can still slot every possible answer into one of the two. Then it just becomes silly.
This makes no sense at all to me. How about refuting my argument with some clear statements, instead of hiding behind this vagueness?
Tell me about these "specific definitions" and so forth.
And then there's this kind of bullshit:
The fact that I hope you have a box of tissues nearby for when you finish your posts.
In the long run, I've probably made some logical error. It's very easy to do, and I do it a lot. But all you are doing is spouting out rhetoric.
This message has been edited by robinrohan, 04-07-2006 04:41 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 217 by Dan Carroll, posted 04-07-2006 5:31 PM Dan Carroll has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 223 by Dan Carroll, posted 04-07-2006 5:44 PM robinrohan has replied

Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 223 of 301 (302163)
04-07-2006 5:44 PM
Reply to: Message 222 by robinrohan
04-07-2006 5:40 PM


Re: Satheism, Watheism
Tell me about these "specific definitions" and so forth.
"All-powerful, all-good, and all-knowing, ideal, the answer to everything, always objective, never subjective" doesn't sound specific to you?
But all you are doing is spouting out rhetoric.
Actually, the portion you're quoting is a fairly straightforward joke about masturbation. I spout those out too.

"We had survived to turn on the History Channel
And ask our esteemed panel, Why are we alive? And here's how they replied:
You're what happens when two substances collide
And by all accounts you really should have died."
-Andrew Bird

This message is a reply to:
 Message 222 by robinrohan, posted 04-07-2006 5:40 PM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 224 by robinrohan, posted 04-07-2006 5:48 PM Dan Carroll has replied

robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 224 of 301 (302164)
04-07-2006 5:48 PM
Reply to: Message 223 by Dan Carroll
04-07-2006 5:44 PM


Re: Satheism, Watheism
"All-powerful, all-good, and all-knowing, ideal, the answer to everything, always objective, never subjective" doesn't sound specific to you?
Yeah, so what's the problem with all that?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 223 by Dan Carroll, posted 04-07-2006 5:44 PM Dan Carroll has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 228 by Dan Carroll, posted 04-07-2006 5:54 PM robinrohan has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024