Atheism 2.0

Off Topic Politics and World Issues
81

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]AceRock wrote:
Your 5 arguments, if you’re talking about Aquinas, are not proofs. Ad infinitum, absurdity, and there must be something, are far from nails in the coffin. What am I missing?[/quote]

smh basically owns these arguments time and time again in various threads and I still see theists running around talking about proof.

No. No. No. [/quote]

SMH and I were not talking about proof of God. We were discussing an argument regarding contingent entities, period. Had nothing to do with God. Can you tell the difference?

Discussing a particular specific argument about contingent entities does not equal God. Especially since God is non-contingent. If you want to try to prove them wrong. Pick one, and we can discuss it. That is, if you can keep your ad hominems at bay and talk about them like a man.[/quote]

SMH and yourself have talked of god many times. Do I really need to show all the posts and threads to prove you wrong with your own words? Of course not. Though you feeling like I was talking about you it quite telling as is your plea to stop ad hom attacks (of which I haven’t done) by questioning my manhood.

I knew there was a reason I was posting on this forum less. Same circular nonsense and juvenile discussion tactics.

Perhaps the “man” thing to do would be to stop coming to the conclusion everyone is talking about you? That sounds like paranoia. [/quote]

You spent half a thread attacking me personally, with this bullshit that ‘everyone is talking about you and thinks you’re stupid’ crap and not a soul jumped in and agreed with you. The only person here with a hard-on for me is you. Shall I post the thread where you sat there and personally attacked me for like 5 pages? Is that a feather in your cap? Your claim to fame? You insulted an anonymous guy on the internet? Woo hoo tough guy, you know how to call people names!

When you post the threads, make sure you dig up where I lost the argument for the existence of God. I want the specific post where that happened. And when you discover it never happened, that we’re discussing an argument for contingent entities, and you’ve wasted hours, then you can get back to me.

The only feather in your cap is you know how to attack people personally, otherwise you don’t know shit and need other people to fight your fights for you. Yeah, your something. Let’s see if ‘everybody’ will come and bail you out…

82

[quote]Severiano wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Severiano wrote:
Aquinas’ arguments have been put to rest, great arguments from a brilliant man. They still to this day are solid arguments, but you can pretty much pick and choose which of the multiple premises to refute, it’s actually something done at many universities in Phil of Religion classes.
[/quote]
By whom and since when? Give me the great counter argument that ‘put it to rest’…

I didn’t argue there couldn’t be a multiverse. There very well could be. I don’t argue that, nor do I argue that it can’t be infinite. It doesn’t stand to reason that it exists for no reason. That is just is.

Yeah, those refutations are terrible to say the least. The whole ‘then what caused God’ bullshit has been dealt with. By necessity, God can’t be caused. Or the infinite regress actually exists. Like I said pick an argument you want to deal with and I will show you why the ‘supposed’ refutations are wrong.

83

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
How is a vacuum of knowledge generated that needs replacing if there is no God?[/quote]

84

Has anyone proved that God is non-contingent?

85

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]AceRock wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]AceRock wrote:
Your 5 arguments, if you’re talking about Aquinas, are not proofs. Ad infinitum, absurdity, and there must be something, are far from nails in the coffin. What am I missing?[/quote]

smh basically owns these arguments time and time again in various threads and I still see theists running around talking about proof.

No. No. No. [/quote]

Thought so. Proof of god got out of hand.[/quote]

Again, we weren’t discussing God. An argument for the contingency of things. Big difference.
We were not discussing the arguments for God’s existence. I would suggest however, if you want to discuss it, then start another thread and not hi-jack this one. If you want to discuss the arguments, I’ll be happy to. But we shouldn’t derail Bigflamer’s thread.[/quote]

Yeah, I forgot you weren’t discussing God in the “Proof of God” thread. My bad.

Also, you brought up the 5 arguments as backing for your comments in this thread. How is questioning them hijacking? You can say it, but I can’t ask about it? Either way, I’m not getting into a 20 page debate about non-conclusive theories. It was just a passing comment.

86

[quote]pat wrote:

You spent half a thread attacking me personally, with this bullshit that ‘everyone is talking about you and thinks you’re stupid’ crap and not a soul jumped in and agreed with you. The only person here with a hard-on for me is you. Shall I post the thread where you sat there and personally attacked me for like 5 pages? Is that a feather in your cap? Your claim to fame? You insulted an anonymous guy on the internet? Woo hoo tough guy, you know how to call people names!

When you post the threads, make sure you dig up where I lost the argument for the existence of God. I want the specific post where that happened. And when you discover it never happened, that we’re discussing an argument for contingent entities, and you’ve wasted hours, then you can get back to me.

The only feather in your cap is you know how to attack people personally, otherwise you don’t know shit and need other people to fight your fights for you. Yeah, your something. Let’s see if ‘everybody’ will come and bail you out…[/quote]

This never happened. It happened in your mind. You’re paranoid and can’t stand when I post because you feel like I’m attacking you. I’ve pointed out numerous times that I’m not and you still respond with these whiny baby posts.

You’re just making stuff up now because you pretend people are attacking you personally when they disagree with something. I probably posted 5 times in that thread that I had nothing against you and you still responded with emotionally charged passive aggressive whining.

Just stop. I hadn’t even posted to you in this thread and you run in pulling the fire alarm. Grow up. And FWIW you have a very weird habit of getting on someone for calling you names while calling them names. It doesn’t make any sense.

87

From me: [quote]I’m not pissed at you at all. You’re the one spouting off personal attacks. Don’t talk about me and then try and play the victim like I’m out to get you.[/quote]

Your response: Oh I see, you’re trying to expose me for who I really am… Whatever floats your boat. Expose me all you want.

From me:

You keep exploding. Even when I’m not talking to you. Can’t be good for your health, c’mon Pat this is a fitness site. It ain’t that big a deal.

88

[quote]AceRock wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]AceRock wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]AceRock wrote:
Your 5 arguments, if you’re talking about Aquinas, are not proofs. Ad infinitum, absurdity, and there must be something, are far from nails in the coffin. What am I missing?[/quote]

smh basically owns these arguments time and time again in various threads and I still see theists running around talking about proof.

No. No. No. [/quote]

Thought so. Proof of god got out of hand.[/quote]

Again, we weren’t discussing God. An argument for the contingency of things. Big difference.
We were not discussing the arguments for God’s existence. I would suggest however, if you want to discuss it, then start another thread and not hi-jack this one. If you want to discuss the arguments, I’ll be happy to. But we shouldn’t derail Bigflamer’s thread.[/quote]

Yeah, I forgot you weren’t discussing God in the “Proof of God” thread. My bad.
[/quote]
Like many threads it got derailed. Feel free to look at what was discussed. It’s still there. We were debating an argument on contingent entities, mostly.

[quote]

Also, you brought up the 5 arguments as backing for your comments in this thread. How is questioning them hijacking? You can say it, but I can’t ask about it? Either way, I’m not getting into a 20 page debate about non-conclusive theories. It was just a passing comment.[/quote]

If you have a problem with them, then be specific.

89

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

You spent half a thread attacking me personally, with this bullshit that ‘everyone is talking about you and thinks you’re stupid’ crap and not a soul jumped in and agreed with you. The only person here with a hard-on for me is you. Shall I post the thread where you sat there and personally attacked me for like 5 pages? Is that a feather in your cap? Your claim to fame? You insulted an anonymous guy on the internet? Woo hoo tough guy, you know how to call people names!

When you post the threads, make sure you dig up where I lost the argument for the existence of God. I want the specific post where that happened. And when you discover it never happened, that we’re discussing an argument for contingent entities, and you’ve wasted hours, then you can get back to me.

The only feather in your cap is you know how to attack people personally, otherwise you don’t know shit and need other people to fight your fights for you. Yeah, your something. Let’s see if ‘everybody’ will come and bail you out…[/quote]

This never happened. It happened in your mind. You’re paranoid and can’t stand when I post because you feel like I’m attacking you. I’ve pointed out numerous times that I’m not and you still respond with these whiny baby posts.

You’re just making stuff up now because you pretend people are attacking you personally when they disagree with something. I probably posted 5 times in that thread that I had nothing against you and you still responded with emotionally charged passive aggressive whining.

Just stop. I hadn’t even posted to you in this thread and you run in pulling the fire alarm. Grow up. And FWIW you have a very weird habit of getting on someone for calling you names while calling them names. It doesn’t make any sense. [/quote]

No, it didn’t happen here in this thread:

Liar.

90

[quote]H factor wrote:
From me: [quote]I’m not pissed at you at all. You’re the one spouting off personal attacks. Don’t talk about me and then try and play the victim like I’m out to get you.[/quote]

Your response: Oh I see, you’re trying to expose me for who I really am… Whatever floats your boat. Expose me all you want.

From me:

You keep exploding. Even when I’m not talking to you. Can’t be good for your health, c’mon Pat this is a fitness site. It ain’t that big a deal. [/quote]

Way to cherry pick responses to try and make yourself look good to some mysterious audience. How dishonest. I am not going to get in a thread quote pissing contest.
Everywhere I go, where ever I post, you seem to want to pick a fight with me. Maybe I need an internet restraining order or something. Why are you so obsessed with me?

91

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
Has anyone proved that God is non-contingent?[/quote]

Yes.

92

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
Has anyone proved that God is non-contingent?[/quote]

Yes.[/quote]

Link?

93

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]AceRock wrote:
Your 5 arguments, if you’re talking about Aquinas, are not proofs. Ad infinitum, absurdity, and there must be something, are far from nails in the coffin. What am I missing?[/quote]

smh basically owns these arguments time and time again in various threads and I still see theists running around talking about proof.

No. No. No. [/quote]

SMH and I were not talking about proof of God. We were discussing an argument regarding contingent entities, period. Had nothing to do with God. Can you tell the difference?

Discussing a particular specific argument about contingent entities does not equal God. Especially since God is non-contingent. If you want to try to prove them wrong. Pick one, and we can discuss it. That is, if you can keep your ad hominems at bay and talk about them like a man.[/quote]

SMH and yourself have talked of god many times. Do I really need to show all the posts and threads to prove you wrong with your own words? Of course not. Though you feeling like I was talking about you it quite telling as is your plea to stop ad hom attacks (of which I haven’t done) by questioning my manhood.

I knew there was a reason I was posting on this forum less. Same circular nonsense and juvenile discussion tactics.

Perhaps the “man” thing to do would be to stop coming to the conclusion everyone is talking about you? That sounds like paranoia. [/quote]

LOL!! What is with you? Yes, please dig up every conversation I have ever had with every person… Seriously, who has time for this shit?

Who has time to dig up old shit from old posts, repeatedly for some unknown reason?

Who has time to follow somebody around from thread to thread trying to pick fights with them? What are like 12?

I come here to have enjoyable and respectful discussions and arguments with people of varying back grounds and beliefs who wish to discuss them with me. If you don’t want to discuss something, don’t say anything. Don’t participate if it doesn’t interest you? How hard is it to do nothing?
I don’t come here to participate in some middle-school popularity contest.
I don’t have time for this petty bullshit. Whatever your problem is with me, you will have to discuss it with your therapist from now on. I haven’t

Well, you can do whatever you want. This ends for me now. You are here by on my permanent ignore list. I will no longer read, nor respond to anything you say. Have a nice life.

94

pat, you sound like you’re having a mood-swing or bipolar incident.

95

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
Has anyone proved that God is non-contingent?[/quote]

Yes.[/quote]

Link?
[/quote]

By necessity God, or what we would call a Necessary Being in the case of philosophy cannot be caused and be ‘God’ or what we understand the concept of God to be. If God is contingent, he is not by definition God. What ever he is contingent on would then claim the prize.

Here is a general link on the cosmological argument complete with objections:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cosmological-argument/

Here is a link discussing some common objections and why they are not good objections:

96

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
pat, you sound like you’re having a mood-swing or bipolar incident.[/quote]

Honestly. I have no idea what he is getting worked up over. I didn’t say anything to him in this thread until he replied at me and if you read the thread where he feels attacked you can see I merely was pointing out some of his posts.

Somehow he feels like I’m following him around from thread to thread (not true), obsessed with him (not true), have a problem with him (not true), and constantly pick a fight with him (not true).

Of course telling him I don’t have a problem with him and demonstrating that he is taking a bunch of things the wrong way only seems to enrage him more. Lol, I’ve probably posted “I like you Pat” 5 times to him of the last 20 I’ve posted and he still feels like I’m going after him.

I’m sorry Pat, but I really don’t know why you’re so upset about all this. Maybe you need to hit Piitbull’s bong. Like I said before, bullshit internet discussions. Ain’t no big thing. Don’t let it get the blood boiling. If I’m on permanent ignore that’s too bad, I like some of your posts and wouldn’t mind interacting with you if you’d just calm down on me. I’m really not the bad guy here. And I don’t think you are either. You just can’t read my posts right now rationally because of so much emotion.

97

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
Has anyone proved that God is non-contingent?[/quote]

Yes.[/quote]

Link?
[/quote]

By necessity God, or what we would call a Necessary Being in the case of philosophy cannot be caused and be ‘God’ or what we understand the concept of God to be. If God is contingent, he is not by definition God. What ever he is contingent on would then claim the prize.

Here is a general link on the cosmological argument complete with objections:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cosmological-argument/

Here is a link discussing some common objections and why they are not good objections:
http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2011/07/so-you-think-you-understand.html[/quote]

Thank you, I finish my exams on the 22nd, so I’ll get around to these then.

98

But what about atheism 3.0?

99

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Severiano wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Severiano wrote:
Aquinas’ arguments have been put to rest, great arguments from a brilliant man. They still to this day are solid arguments, but you can pretty much pick and choose which of the multiple premises to refute, it’s actually something done at many universities in Phil of Religion classes.
[/quote]
By whom and since when? Give me the great counter argument that ‘put it to rest’…

I didn’t argue there couldn’t be a multiverse. There very well could be. I don’t argue that, nor do I argue that it can’t be infinite. It doesn’t stand to reason that it exists for no reason. That is just is.

Yeah, those refutations are terrible to say the least. The whole ‘then what caused God’ bullshit has been dealt with. By necessity, God can’t be caused. Or the infinite regress actually exists. Like I said pick an argument you want to deal with and I will show you why the ‘supposed’ refutations are wrong. [/quote]

Well, the first cause for example was knocked off by David Hume with the problem of induction. If you can get past Hume you will win a Nobel Prize.

100

[quote]Severiano wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Severiano wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Severiano wrote:
Aquinas’ arguments have been put to rest, great arguments from a brilliant man. They still to this day are solid arguments, but you can pretty much pick and choose which of the multiple premises to refute, it’s actually something done at many universities in Phil of Religion classes.
[/quote]
By whom and since when? Give me the great counter argument that ‘put it to rest’…

I didn’t argue there couldn’t be a multiverse. There very well could be. I don’t argue that, nor do I argue that it can’t be infinite. It doesn’t stand to reason that it exists for no reason. That is just is.

Yeah, those refutations are terrible to say the least. The whole ‘then what caused God’ bullshit has been dealt with. By necessity, God can’t be caused. Or the infinite regress actually exists. Like I said pick an argument you want to deal with and I will show you why the ‘supposed’ refutations are wrong. [/quote]

Well, the first cause for example was knocked off by David Hume with the problem of induction. If you can get past Hume you will win a Nobel Prize. [/quote]

Hume dealt with empirical causation, not contingency. The argument was not solved by Hume. Hume’s very prudent observations about causation would only deal with the Kalam/ Aristotelian cosmological claims. The interest isn’t some much linear causation as in a cause directly resulting in a particular event as in truth by definition. Humes observations on for instance X+Y=Z is spot on in that unless you know all the facts and instances of X and Y you cannot know it will always result in Z, all you can derive is correlation, not causation is spot on, but that’s not how contingency functions. Contingency would say that if Z, then X and Y must be present or not Z. It deals with what makes things what they are. It’s truth by definition.
Honestly Hume did more damage to science when it comes to establishing absolutes rather than the cosmological argument itself. Not to say he wasn’t driven by the argument. He very much was. And he was a damned honest philosopher, and didn’t mind painting himself in to corners if that’s where the logic led him. But he was also a strict empiricist, he did care for or deal with metaphysics. He would float back and forth between acknowledging it and not and also floated back and forth from atheism to agnosticism. Nobody has to ‘beat’ Hume. He left many areas untouched. And nobody can beat Hume when it comes to empirical causation. But the story didn’t end with Hume.