RE: Atheism and the existence of peanut butter
September 16, 2021 at 4:23 pm
(This post was last modified: September 16, 2021 at 4:24 pm by R00tKiT.)
(September 16, 2021 at 3:32 pm)Angrboda Wrote: Merriam-Webster lists the following antonyms for eternal: ephemeral, evanescent, fleeting, fugacious, fugitive, momentary, passing, short-lived, transitory, interim, provisional, short-term -- none of which tells us anything prescient about the question. That you're reduced to arguing the meaning of words shows the level of thought in play. The meaning of words do not dictate physics nor logic and at times violate them. If you don't have a better argument then you are basically fucked, in addition to showing yourself not particularly clever. I take it from your response that you are unaware of any alternatives to the options which you claim are mutually exclusive. However, coherent alternatives to eternal and beginning to exist have been suggested and are sufficiently well known that they have drawn responses from theists such as William Lane Craig and Paul Copan. Regardless of whether any specific proposed alternative to the options you present is the case for our universe, it's clear that one can speculate about a universe with no beginning that is not past eternal without obviously entailing a contradiction and so the idea is coherent and therefore possible for this universe, or any other. Since a third possibility exists, what you have presented is, in addition to being unsupported and therefore fallaciously ipse dixit, an example of a false dichotomy. That you don't understand that both flaws doom your argument only shows that as far as this discussion goes, your arguments are the epitome of low-hanging fruit. I suggest you do some reading, or, at the least, do yourself the favor of making an argument that is not dependent upon your apparently poor grasp of what certain words mean. It is not an analytical truth of the concept of past eternity that its negation entails a temporal boundary; it does not. Nor is it analytically implied by the lack of a temporal boundary that a thing is past eternal. The only thing we've discovered here is that you're both ignorant and not particularly good at words or logic.
Since you have presented no argument that no alternatives to your two exists, your conclusion that I have violated the law of the excluded middle is baseless and thereby rejected.
ps. I notice you've shut up about benevolence. That's probably for the best as in addition to showing you to be a liar, it also shows your inability to keep one argument straight from another.
Now, unless you have an argument that is actually valid which answers what I have written, your complaints are dismissed as the groundless twaddle that they are.
Congratulations @Angrboda, you mercilessly raped logic and broke the boundaries of existence. Now, no amount of silly justifications will excuse your sophistry. The "alternatives" you're talking about are simply subtler ways in which the universe could have began, not some sophistic midpoint between a proposition and its direct logical negation.
@Jehanne tried to take the same sophistic path out by suggesting the no boundary proposal, which turned out to be a description of how the universe began. @polymath257 shamelessly tried to find an alternative to classical logic and proposed a defunct interpretation of QM. And it turned out (Flash news ) that classical logic actually describes the mathematical structure of QM perfectly well.
What a silly board of sophists.
The discussion stops here. Once you're past the red line of the laws of thought, you stop being rational. Have a good day.
(September 16, 2021 at 3:37 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: This must be a sexual thing for Kloro. Not that there’s anything wrong with masochism…
Boru
Can't you be fair once ...? I guess I can't expect any kind of acknowledgment in an atheist board, even when I am right.