Hell and God cant Co-exist.

[Socratic Meth Head]

I’ve never been bit by the dog my neighbor doesn’t have.

I wonder why that is.

Lmao!

[IATIA]

I’ve never been bit by the dog my neighbor doesn’t have.

And I've never been bit by the god you don't have.

[Neo-Scholastic]

I’ve never been bit by the dog my neighbor doesn’t have.

I wonder why that is.

MY POINT EXACTLY! Maybe if you were less biased against the theistic AF members you would direct your snipes toward Equilax and Jor. They, not me, are suggesting that non-existent things can cause change. Nevertheless, should I take your comment as tacit agreement that common everyday observations can serve as evidence, observations such as "only actual things cause change."

[dyresand]

I wonder why that is.

MY POINT EXACTLY! Maybe if you were less biased against the theistic AF members you would direct your snipes toward Equilax and Jor. They, not me, are suggesting that non-existent things can cause change. Nevertheless, should I take your comment as tacit agreement that common everyday observations can serve as evidence, observations such as "only actual things cause change."

I dunno there was always a bias against theists for as long as their religion existed. It's like so 
back then you couldn't say i don't believe in your god(s) you would get killed for that. Now in this era
you could get killed but for the most part you would get shunned. To put it like so why do you need god for anything
the universe came about in naturalistic means heck we found the building blocks for life already. You can get life from 
non life given the right circumstances. 
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-29368984

Life - it's just interstellar chemistry at it's finest.

[Esquilax]

So now you’re going to argue against causal order? Give me a break. You objected to the 5th Way by saying that regular causality was a brute fact Typical Ex-Lax...always reaching for the argument of convenience. But that’s okay. I don’t object to people taking the absurdist/nihilist stance if that’s their existential choice.

Heaven for-fucking-fend that a person's position might be more nuanced than Wooter's immediate understanding of it, right?

Let me spell it out for you: causality might just be a brute fact within expansionist models of the universe- you've completely failed to demonstrate that it has any additional significance or requires any special justification, as usual- but just because something is a function of a given universe model doesn't mean that it's the same in every model, including pre-big bang models, nor that the entirety of my position is encapsulated in one objection, either.

But hey, don't let that stop you lazily strawmanning: it seems to be the only thing you've got going for you anymore.

...prior to the big bang, all ideas of how change works go out the window, and this is something supported by all of the physics we currently understand.

You point is mute because it is based on a flawed understanding of physics.
There is no time prior to the big bang. The temporal order was part of what got actualized along with everything else.

First of all, it's "moot," not "mute."

Secondly, linear time as we understand it certainly began with the big bang, but that's not the same thing as time, period. An actual understanding of physics would show you that physicists generally believe that we'd need an entirely new set of physics to describe the pre-planck time universe, including new modes of language to properly communicate those ideas... none of which exist yet, because of the limitations on our ability to measure that point in the universe's development. As usual, your understanding of the ideas you discuss are overly simplistic and not reflective of a comprehensive, nuanced view of the subject.

But anyway, let's assume that time as a whole did start with the big bang: wouldn't that mean that your observations of change and how that works stop counting at that time, meaning that they don't apply globally and, thus, don't require a god to get started? You know, the thing I've been saying all along?

Moreover, your argument loses all force if you present it properly, which is "the evidence we observe suggests that, in our current expansionist universe, actual things can cause change, but they might not be the only thing."

You seem not to realize that the opposite is absurd. Or maybe you do, having taken the absurdist stance.

Argument from fucking ignorance again. You know, for someone so hot on logical arguments, you've got a conveniently loose grip on basic tenets of logic and its associated fallacies. It's almost as if you're just trying anything to reach a presupposed conclusion where you've been right all along, and you don't really give a shit about logic proper...

Oh, and by the way? Still haven't bothered to connect your spurious argument to the god conclusion you're attempting to make. I know you're searching for distractions to mask that, but that's kinda the big failure here for you. How is your conclusion relevant to the argument at all?

There is very little point in presenting a rational argument to a nihilistic absurdist that questions causality and the thinks things that don’t exist can do things.

So basically, you can't actually argue your position, so you're reduced to strawmanning me and primping up your incredulity as though it actually means anything, in an attempt to dismiss me from the conversation, instead of justifying anything?

"You're a nihilist," is not an argument, Chad. It's just dishonest dodgeball to avoid answering for your total lack of an argument.

[Esquilax]

I wonder why that is.

MY POINT EXACTLY! Maybe if you were less biased against the theistic AF members you would direct your snipes toward Equilax and Jor. They, not me, are suggesting that non-existent things can cause change. Nevertheless, should I take your comment as tacit agreement that common everyday observations can serve as evidence, observations such as "only actual things cause change."

You are lying about my position, and either you know it, and are being dishonest as all get out, or you don't, and are thus so thick that even when I spell out my position in simple, emphatic language, minutes after you question me on it, it still doesn't sink in.

So which is it, Wooters: idiot, or liar?

Edit: Bit disappointed to see that CL kudosed this latest trash fire from Wooters, I thought she'd be able to see through his transparent strawman. :/

[Catholic_Lady]

MY POINT EXACTLY! Maybe if you were less biased against the theistic AF members you would direct your snipes toward Equilax and Jor. They, not me, are suggesting that non-existent things can cause change. Nevertheless, should I take your comment as tacit agreement that common everyday observations can serve as evidence, observations such as "only actual things cause change."

I dunno there was always a bias against theists for as long as their religion existed. It's like so 
back then you couldn't say i don't believe in your god(s) you would get killed for that. Now in this era
you could get killed but for the most part you would get shunned. To put it like so why do you need god for anything
the universe came about in naturalistic means heck we found the building blocks for life already. You can get life from 
non life given the right circumstances. 
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-29368984

Life - it's just interstellar chemistry at it's finest.

Yes, but something was still needed to make that first life happen. 

Life didn't just spontaneously start to exist. It evolved from something else that was already there. And that thing came from another thing. And so on and so forth. In nature, as we know it, everything comes from something. As far as we know, things don't begin to exist out of nowhere and from nothing at all. So if you believe there wasn't any sort of supernatural element to the beginning of the first particle of the first natural thing to ever have existed, that is totally fine, but you are still putting your faith on something we have no understanding of and no explanation for.

[madog]

 

Yes, but something was still needed to make that first life happen. 

 

We are on an ongoing quest to know everything, maybe we never will ....

The difference between the religious is they get the answer from an ancient book.

Every time the ancient book is debunked on a point the religious just re-interpret their book.

We don't know something had to start everything its an assumption, but even if that was correct why does it need to be a God? or further why your particular God? .... then even if there was a God, why would he have any interest in us? why would that make him good?

The difference between an atheist and the religious is we don't know all the answers, were as the religious "believe" they do based on books written by semi-illiterate stone age people that thought the earth was flat. Or some "prophet", or Pope that leads an organization that profits from the belief in their God .....

[Catholic_Lady]

Yes, but something was still needed to make that first life happen. 

 

We are on an ongoing quest to know everything, maybe we never will ....

The difference between the religious is they get the answer from an ancient book.

Every time the ancient book is debunked on a point the religious just re-interpret their book.

We don't know something had to start everything its an assumption, but even if that was correct why does it need to be a God? or further why your particular God? .... then even if there was a God, why would he have any interest in us? why would that make him good?

The difference between an atheist and the religious is we don't know all the answers, were as the religious "believe" they do based on books written by semi-illiterate stone age people that thought the earth was flat. Or some "prophet", or Pope that leads an organization that profits from the belief in their God .....

I'm not making a case for religion specifically. Merely comparing the belief that there was a supernatural element at play (not being specific on who or what), with believing this was all nature on its own from the very beginning.   

We have no scientific proof or evidence of any sort regarding how this all began, and as far as we know, everything in nature, every force, etc, has to come from something. So thinking there was no supernatural element at play still doesn't line up with how we understand nature, and still requires a certain degree of faith.

[dyresand]

I dunno there was always a bias against theists for as long as their religion existed. It's like so 
back then you couldn't say i don't believe in your god(s) you would get killed for that. Now in this era
you could get killed but for the most part you would get shunned. To put it like so why do you need god for anything
the universe came about in naturalistic means heck we found the building blocks for life already. You can get life from 
non life given the right circumstances. 
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-29368984

Life - it's just interstellar chemistry at it's finest.

Yes, but something was still needed to make that first life happen. 

Life didn't just spontaneously start to exist. It evolved from something else that was already there. And that thing came from another thing. And so on and so forth. In nature, as we know it, everything comes from something. As far as we know, things don't begin to exist out of nowhere and from nothing at all. So if you believe there wasn't any sort of supernatural element to the beginning of the first particle of the first natural thing to ever have existed, that is totally fine, but you are still putting your faith on something we have no understanding of and no explanation for.

You don't really need something CL you really don't. 





to put it like so under the right conditions you can get life from non life this experiment is proof of that.
you can even google it and look up the results for yourself. Considering this is pretty embarrassing this is the year 2016 we
should have moved on from religious beliefs and moved on into a much more modern science based society by now.