This thread makes me lol all over myself…
No gravity isn’t energy, but energi is the direct cause to the warping of space, hence energy isn’t destroyed.
This 12 page thread is pretty much an ad hominem war between 3-5 people. It’s funny.
You bunch of retards.
[quote]forlife wrote:
pat wrote:
forlife wrote:
pat wrote:
The universe cannot be an uncaused-cause because by definition and uncause-cause cannot be subject to the causal chain as the universe clearly is. I already said that. It necessarily has to sit outside the causal chain.
Oh really? So it is impossible for there to be a cause-relationship effect between let’s say, your prayers to god and the answers you receive to those prayers? As an uncaused cause, your god cannot be subject to the causal chain.
Uh, what?
You said an uncaused cause is outside the causal chain, and thus by definition it cannot be affected by what it creates.
[/quote]
So what are you not getting about that? Talking to God in the form of prayer is not causing Him to do anything. It’s an appeal to will, if you are asking for something. A cause and effect may become a result, but not necessarily. God isn’t a vending machine, you don’t insert a prayer and BANG! out comes a soda…
You claim to be formally religious, but you don’t seem to understand it at all.
[quote]forlife wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Because I place faith that I’ve chosen correctly. You’re the one with the philosophy that requires you to accept that I might be right.
Placing faith that you’ve chosen correctly without actual proof doesn’t make you right, it only makes you unjustifiably confident.[/quote]
Almost every moment of your life you are making decisions based on faith. There is very little you can actually know. Especially as an empiricist, you sustain almost completely on correlation. Correlation infers a relationship, but it, cannot prove it.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
forlife wrote:
If you experience doubt, that means that at some level you admit that your belief may not reflect objective reality.
But I’m not required, per my “philosophy,” to accept it. You’re required to accpet the possibilty of my God’s, and a thick-sauced spaghetti monster’s, existence. And that, is where we shall never meet.[/quote]
You’re not required to accept anything. That you acknowledge your belief may not reflect reality is at least an honest admission.
[quote]McG78 wrote:
Forlife, how does trying to belittle someone’s faith or make them doubt it better you or the other person?[/quote]
The point isn’t to belittle someone’s faith, but to apply simple logic, integrity, and reason to the search for truth. People lie to themselves all the time, choosing to believe in something because they want it to be true, rather than because it really is true. I believe the truth really does set you free, so I encourage others to seek it just as I try to seek it myself.
Some of my favorite quotes:
[quote]pat wrote:
So what are you not getting about that? Talking to God in the form of prayer is not causing Him to do anything. It’s an appeal to will, if you are asking for something. A cause and effect may become a result, but not necessarily. God isn’t a vending machine, you don’t insert a prayer and BANG! out comes a soda… [/quote]
You didn’t say it was a NECESSARY relationship. You said that an uncaused cause is definitionally EXCLUDED from any possibility of a cause-effect relationship. Now you’re backpedaling by admitting that SOMETIMES god is part of a cause-effect relationship. Not that it happens all the time, but it can happen, since prayers are sometimes affirmatively answered. So which is it?
[quote]pat wrote:
Almost every moment of your life you are making decisions based on faith. There is very little you can actually know. Especially as an empiricist, you sustain almost completely on correlation. Correlation infers a relationship, but it, cannot prove it.[/quote]
There’s nothing wrong with basing your decisions on probabilities rather than absolutes. The point is that faith is, by definition, completely unrelated to any kind of empirical probability. Based on existing evidence, which is essentially zilch, there is no substantial probability that your god is real. However, based on existing evidence, which is abundant, there is a substantial probability that the sun will rise tomorrow. So I plan on the sun rising, but am not planning on your god being real. If the evidence changes, my plans will change accordingly.
[quote]forlife wrote:
pat wrote:
So what are you not getting about that? Talking to God in the form of prayer is not causing Him to do anything. It’s an appeal to will, if you are asking for something. A cause and effect may become a result, but not necessarily. God isn’t a vending machine, you don’t insert a prayer and BANG! out comes a soda…
You didn’t say it was a NECESSARY relationship. You said that an uncaused cause is definitionally EXCLUDED from any possibility of a cause-effect relationship. Now you’re backpedaling by admitting that SOMETIMES god is part of a cause-effect relationship. Not that it happens all the time, but it can happen, since prayers are sometimes affirmatively answered. So which is it?[/quote]
NO, you are misunderstanding and trying to spin what I said. You also don’t understand cause and effect. Causes necessitate their resultant effect. Choice and will are something else, because until decision is made, there is no cause and effect relationship.
If A then B ← Cause and effect
If A then maybe B, C or D or maybe nothing at all ← Not cause and effect.
When you pray for something, God can answer you, ignore you, or what ever he wants. There is no mandate that prayer will cause God to do anything.
[quote]forlife wrote:
pat wrote:
Almost every moment of your life you are making decisions based on faith. There is very little you can actually know. Especially as an empiricist, you sustain almost completely on correlation. Correlation infers a relationship, but it, cannot prove it.
There’s nothing wrong with basing your decisions on probabilities rather than absolutes. The point is that faith is, by definition, completely unrelated to any kind of empirical probability. Based on existing evidence, which is essentially zilch, there is no substantial probability that your god is real. However, based on existing evidence, which is abundant, there is a substantial probability that the sun will rise tomorrow. So I plan on the sun rising, but am not planning on your god being real. If the evidence changes, my plans will change accordingly.[/quote]
I didn’t say there was anything wrong with it, I said that and action you take with out knowing all the facts is an act of faith, period.
As far as evidences for God, there are plenty of course. Ignoring them doesn’t make them not there. You just have to look. I see it all around me everyday, and I am astounded by it everyday. It’s not incumbent to do so of course. You are free to believe as you wish, with or with out evidence.
[quote]pat wrote:
If A then maybe B, C or D or maybe nothing at all ← Not cause and effect.
[/quote]
If A didn’t happen, would B, C, or D similarly not have happened? Are you suggesting there is literally zero correlation between A and B/C/D?
[quote]pat wrote:
I didn’t say there was anything wrong with it, I said that and action you take with out knowing all the facts is an act of faith, period. [/quote]
And I said it’s not the stark black and white picture you’re trying to paint, where people either know something perfectly or have zero knowledge. Probability ranges from 0% to 100%, and you would be an idiot to go with 1% probability over 99% probability.
If there was as much evidence as you claim, you would have knowledge rather than faith.