Why Something Rather Than Nothing?

[Anomalocaris]

Yes. because reality is by definition what is. To say god exist outside reality is to say the proposition that god exists is false.

[Esquilax]

Suppose a certain Smith approaches you and tells you that by "God" he means "dog." Would you still disbelieve in the existence of Smith's god?

And if not, then you are no longer an atheist, because you now believe in the existence of at least one god.

Yes, congratulations: if you strip all the pertinent words in a definition of any meaning, and then add on whatever meaning is convenient to your petty little games, then you can make anything mean anything, and thus apply any label to anyone.

You must be very proud of your cheap rhetorical trick.

Of course, under the same logic you are no longer a christian, if I determine christianity to mean orca whale. So, really, what the hell do you think you're doing here? Why is this appealing to you?

[Heywood]

Suppose a certain Smith approaches you and tells you that by "God" he means "dog." Would you still disbelieve in the existence of Smith's god?

And if not, then you are no longer an atheist, because you now believe in the existence of at least one god.

Yes, congratulations: if you strip all the pertinent words in a definition of any meaning, and then add on whatever meaning is convenient to your petty little games, then you can make anything mean anything, and thus apply any label to anyone.

You must be very proud of your cheap rhetorical trick.

Of course, under the same logic you are no longer a christian, if I determine christianity to mean orca whale. So, really, what the hell do you think you're doing here? Why is this appealing to you?

Defining ones terms is not a cheap trick. It is good rhetoric.

[Anomalocaris]

Rhetoric is the cheapest of tricks in any meaningful discussion.

[Esquilax]

Defining ones terms is not a cheap trick. It is good rhetoric.

So, you are going to sit here and defend "if I define this dog to be god, then you believe in a god, and aren't an atheist!" as a sound and worthwhile argument to make?

Is that what's happening here?

Defining terms is valid, but so is the recognition that words have meanings, and that when you're defining terms you are selecting from a list of possible meanings, not applying whole new, never before used ones to words. Least of all when your goal is simply to invalidate what your opponent chooses to call themselves, and not argue against the meat of their position.

[Heywood]

So, you are going to sit here and defend "if I define this dog to be god, then you believe in a god, and aren't an atheist!" as a sound and worthwhile argument to make?

Is that what's happening here?

Defining terms is valid, but so is the recognition that words have meanings, and that when you're defining terms you are selecting from a list of possible meanings, not applying whole new, never before used ones to words. Least of all when your goal is simply to invalidate what your opponent chooses to call themselves, and not argue against the meat of their position.

What is happening is you are criticizing his definitions rather than his argument. That's the cheap trick being played.

[Anomalocaris]

Not when his definition is a cheap trick to deflect criticism from the lack of substance of his "argument".

[Esquilax]

What is happening is you are criticizing his definitions rather than his argument. That's the cheap trick being played.

No. What's happening here is that I'm pointing out that there isn't an argument. "If I define the thing you have a problem with as something you don't have a problem with, then your position vanishes!" is not an argument. It's not even a cogent statement. All he's saying is that if the disagreement that we're having didn't exist, I wouldn't have a reason to disagree with him.

That may be true, but it surely is not a justification for his position, and seeing you thoughtlessly defending it because he blew the dog- Oh, I'm sorry, I meant god whistle... but then again, there isn't a difference to you, is there? - is just hilarious.

[Heywood]

Randomness requires no intelligence. Your argument is stupid on every level.

He isn't saying randomness requires intelligence. He is saying randomness is a manifestation of intelligence. I agree with him. Randomness in some sense is a manifestation of at least a rudimentary intellect.

[Chas]

Randomness requires no intelligence. Your argument is stupid on every level.

He isn't saying randomness requires intelligence. He is saying randomness is a manifestation of intelligence. I agree with him. Randomness in some sense is a manifestation of at least a rudimentary intellect.

No, it isn't. That doesn't make any sense. There is randomness exhibited by purely physical systems, no intelligence involved.