Creationism

[brewer]

Great work, fellows.  Looking forward to the Anselm thread.

Necessarily?

[Ranjr]

Necessarily?

I can conceive of no greater thread.

[brewer]

Necessarily?

I can conceive of no greater thread.

On an island? Island would be better.

[Belacqua]

The "god did it" is not very good an explanation.
It never says how it did it or where it got the stuff, just waggled its magic nose and everything just happened. 
It literally just avoids explaining things and has no positive value.

If you see someone claiming that "god did it" is a good explanation, or that nose-waggling is involved, you should argue against that person.

The first cause argument involves neither of those things. It says that all contingent things rely for their existence on something non-contingent.

No one on this thread has said why the argument is wrong.

[brewer]

If you see someone claiming that "god did it" is a good explanation, or that nose-waggling is involved, you should argue against that person.

The first cause argument involves neither of those things. It says that all contingent things rely for their existence on something non-contingent.

No one on this thread has said why the argument is wrong.

Big fucking whoop. Unless or until someone defines/identifies the first cause and that definition does not depend upon belief/faith alone, it's all just mental masturbation and basically useless.

[Belacqua]

If you see someone claiming that "god did it" is a good explanation, or that nose-waggling is involved, you should argue against that person.

The first cause argument involves neither of those things. It says that all contingent things rely for their existence on something non-contingent.

No one on this thread has said why the argument is wrong.

Big fucking whoop. Unless or until someone defines/identifies the first cause and that definition does not depend upon belief/faith alone, it's all just mental masturbation and basically useless.

The first cause is clearly defined in the argument and it does not depend on faith alone.

[brewer]

Big fucking whoop. Unless or until someone defines/identifies the first cause and that definition does not depend upon belief/faith alone, it's all just mental masturbation and basically useless.

The first cause is clearly defined in the argument and it does not depend on faith alone.

Defined as what exactly, other than first cause, simply a mental construct. Again, big fucking whoop.

[Belacqua]

Defined as what exactly, other than first cause, simply a mental construct. Again, big fucking whoop.

This has been explained several times. 

The first cause is being. Being is not a mental construct. It is pretty obviously real. 

You don't have to care about it. You can have a long and happy life and never think about it at all. If you're one of those puritans who is against masturbation (mental or otherwise) then why do you spend so much time on a thread about the first cause? Is someone forcing you to masturbate?

[Foxaèr]

Theistic mental masturbation is the worst.

[brewer]

Defined as what exactly, other than first cause, simply a mental construct. Again, big fucking whoop.

This has been explained several times. 

The first cause is being. Being is not a mental construct. It is pretty obviously real. 

You don't have to care about it. You can have a long and happy life and never think about it at all. If you're one of those puritans who is against masturbation (mental or otherwise) then why do you spend so much time on a thread about the first cause? Is someone forcing you to masturbate?

Define this "being" as more than a mental construct. It is definitely not obviously real, except as a concept.

Why do I engage you? I like calling you out on your bullshit. You've actually accomplished next to nothing. All you do is repeat what you've read, over and over ad nauseam and somehow think you're special. How's that for an ad hom?

Big fucking whoop.