[quote]wfifer wrote:
I’m agnostic. I don’t purport to know anything.
I’ve gone down the reductionist road. It’s not hard. You have to start with some assumption, some axiom. I’m sorry you’ve had this conversation, I have too. [/quote]Excellent. Fair enough.
[quote]wfifer wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
LOL! Raise kids to think for themselves? You truly can’t have children or you’d know how absurd that concept is. They by default try to make the world conform to them. [/quote]
Sounds like you’re just a shitty parent. 
I was a very argumentative child. All I ever wanted was someone to give me a good reason other than, “because I said so.” I think there’s a lot of value in teaching kids from the start that we don’t have all the answers. And that when we do have answers, they have reasons, even if they don’t like those reasons (which I’m sure they don’t). I honestly don’t see them point in dogmatizing parenting. Can you look around and tell me most people are doing it right? [/quote]
Yeah, probably shouldn’t have given my daughter and son a carton of Marlboro’s and a case of PBR for Christmas, but they just wouldn’t shut up!
There is no one way to parent. Each kid demands their own attention. What works for one, doesn’t with the other, etc. If you try to ram them in to a cookie cutter it seldom turns out well.
The worst parents are new parents. Something about having a a kid makes people think they should not be themselves. Give up drinking, smoking, whatever. If you need improvement you need it despite the kid, and the kid should not be a catalyst. It’s a fools paradise that never lasts. I see no point in lying to my kids, unless they want to go to a store I don’t want to go to, them I tell them it’s closed.
Haha, words of wisdom. I’m sure it’s a fine line between raising a little skeptic and a little asshole. I have no intention of letting them do whatever they want, but I also don’t want to rely on the “because I said so” argument.
On the topic of faith, I would think that raising “free-thinkers” would result in stronger convictions in the long run, whether they choose to have faith in something or not. If my son ends up Christian, let it be because he chose it and not because Grandma wanted him baptized and Mommy was too afraid to tell him that he’ll never see Grandpa again.
I have no intention of having kids before I have a really good handle on my own life, that’s for sure. I don’t understand the rush, especially these days. I mean, I plan on out-squatting my kids when I’m 60.
[quote]pat wrote:
Yeah, probably shouldn’t have given my daughter and son a carton of Marlboro’s and a case of PBR for Christmas, but they just wouldn’t shut up! :)[/quote]
What the fuck?
Who gives someone beer for Christmas? Should have splashed out for some Johnny Walker.
[quote]wfifer wrote:
I mean, I plan on out-squatting my kids when I’m 60. :)[/quote]
I would consider myself an excellent parent only if my kids can out-squat me when I’m 60.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]garcia1970 wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
By definition, God, or when arguing in this vain I prefer ‘Uncaused-Cause’ is necessarily true because the premises make it so. By definition and uncaused-cause cannot be caused, or it’s not uncaused. If God is this Uncaused-cause, he cannot be caused because it would be impossible for him to be otherwise.
[/quote]
Oooookkkkay, so I simply postulate that the universe is uncaused and viola, case closed.
Becaaauuuussse, if you say that everything needs a cause and then simply invent an uncaused cause, who has no cause, because that is how you defined him, I can do that too.
You can choose between the tooth fairy, the easter bunny and the universe itself.
Circular reasoning is circular.
[/quote]
3
That is freaking hilarious! We at least agree on something!![/quote]
That you don’t know shit about cosmology? Yep, I agree…Two peas in a pod.[/quote]
Oh please, your argument is rubbish.
[/quote]
(Yawn) Wake me when you have an actual counter argument that isn’t dumb and actually addresses the argument.
Your ad hominem is rubbish.[/quote]
What counter argument?
You claim that everything must have a cause and then immediately postulate an uncaused cause.
That is prima facie absurd and not an argument.
Also, that was not an ad hominem.
U R a poophead therefore what you said is wrong would be an ad hominem.
Your argument is rubbish was a statement of fact.
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]garcia1970 wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
By definition, God, or when arguing in this vain I prefer ‘Uncaused-Cause’ is necessarily true because the premises make it so. By definition and uncaused-cause cannot be caused, or it’s not uncaused. If God is this Uncaused-cause, he cannot be caused because it would be impossible for him to be otherwise.
[/quote]
Oooookkkkay, so I simply postulate that the universe is uncaused and viola, case closed.
Becaaauuuussse, if you say that everything needs a cause and then simply invent an uncaused cause, who has no cause, because that is how you defined him, I can do that too.
You can choose between the tooth fairy, the easter bunny and the universe itself.
Circular reasoning is circular.
[/quote]
3
That is freaking hilarious! We at least agree on something!![/quote]
That you don’t know shit about cosmology? Yep, I agree…Two peas in a pod.[/quote]
Oh please, your argument is rubbish.
[/quote]
(Yawn) Wake me when you have an actual counter argument that isn’t dumb and actually addresses the argument.
Your ad hominem is rubbish.[/quote]
What counter argument?
You claim that everything must have a cause and then immediately postulate an uncaused cause.
That is prima facie absurd and not an argument.
Also, that was not an ad hominem.
U R a poophead therefore what you said is wrong would be an ad hominem.
Your argument is rubbish was a statement of fact.[/quote]
It necessitates it, you are to thick to understand apparently, like I said prove it wrong, genius. ‘Rubbish’ is not a counter argument. Here’s a link, complete with actual counter arguments, prove it wrong or STFU…
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cosmological-argument/
It’s one page, should not be that hard.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
Yeah, probably shouldn’t have given my daughter and son a carton of Marlboro’s and a case of PBR for Christmas, but they just wouldn’t shut up! :)[/quote]
What the fuck?
Who gives someone beer for Christmas? Should have splashed out for some Johnny Walker.[/quote]
Well if they behaved better they’d get the good stuff…
[quote]wfifer wrote:
Haha, words of wisdom. I’m sure it’s a fine line between raising a little skeptic and a little asshole. I have no intention of letting them do whatever they want, but I also don’t want to rely on the “because I said so” argument.
On the topic of faith, I would think that raising “free-thinkers” would result in stronger convictions in the long run, whether they choose to have faith in something or not. If my son ends up Christian, let it be because he chose it and not because Grandma wanted him baptized and Mommy was too afraid to tell him that he’ll never see Grandpa again.
I have no intention of having kids before I have a really good handle on my own life, that’s for sure. I don’t understand the rush, especially these days. I mean, I plan on out-squatting my kids when I’m 60. :)[/quote]
The biggest thing I’ve learned about aging, is it hurts. If they squat, they’ll probably beat you…
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]garcia1970 wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
By definition, God, or when arguing in this vain I prefer ‘Uncaused-Cause’ is necessarily true because the premises make it so. By definition and uncaused-cause cannot be caused, or it’s not uncaused. If God is this Uncaused-cause, he cannot be caused because it would be impossible for him to be otherwise.
[/quote]
Oooookkkkay, so I simply postulate that the universe is uncaused and viola, case closed.
Becaaauuuussse, if you say that everything needs a cause and then simply invent an uncaused cause, who has no cause, because that is how you defined him, I can do that too.
You can choose between the tooth fairy, the easter bunny and the universe itself.
Circular reasoning is circular.
[/quote]
3
That is freaking hilarious! We at least agree on something!![/quote]
That you don’t know shit about cosmology? Yep, I agree…Two peas in a pod.[/quote]
Oh please, your argument is rubbish.
[/quote]
(Yawn) Wake me when you have an actual counter argument that isn’t dumb and actually addresses the argument.
Your ad hominem is rubbish.[/quote]
What counter argument?
You claim that everything must have a cause and then immediately postulate an uncaused cause.
That is prima facie absurd and not an argument.
Also, that was not an ad hominem.
U R a poophead therefore what you said is wrong would be an ad hominem.
Your argument is rubbish was a statement of fact.[/quote]
It necessitates it, you are to thick to understand apparently, like I said prove it wrong, genius. ‘Rubbish’ is not a counter argument. Here’s a link, complete with actual counter arguments, prove it wrong or STFU…
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cosmological-argument/
It’s one page, should not be that hard.[/quote]
I cannot prove something wrong that you just pull out of your ass.
It is beyond the human experience and therefore unfalsifiable.
Incidentally, you can find my objection under point 4.
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]garcia1970 wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
By definition, God, or when arguing in this vain I prefer ‘Uncaused-Cause’ is necessarily true because the premises make it so. By definition and uncaused-cause cannot be caused, or it’s not uncaused. If God is this Uncaused-cause, he cannot be caused because it would be impossible for him to be otherwise.
[/quote]
Oooookkkkay, so I simply postulate that the universe is uncaused and viola, case closed.
Becaaauuuussse, if you say that everything needs a cause and then simply invent an uncaused cause, who has no cause, because that is how you defined him, I can do that too.
You can choose between the tooth fairy, the easter bunny and the universe itself.
Circular reasoning is circular.
[/quote]
3
That is freaking hilarious! We at least agree on something!![/quote]
That you don’t know shit about cosmology? Yep, I agree…Two peas in a pod.[/quote]
Oh please, your argument is rubbish.
[/quote]
(Yawn) Wake me when you have an actual counter argument that isn’t dumb and actually addresses the argument.
Your ad hominem is rubbish.[/quote]
What counter argument?
You claim that everything must have a cause and then immediately postulate an uncaused cause.
That is prima facie absurd and not an argument.
Also, that was not an ad hominem.
U R a poophead therefore what you said is wrong would be an ad hominem.
Your argument is rubbish was a statement of fact.[/quote]
It necessitates it, you are to thick to understand apparently, like I said prove it wrong, genius. ‘Rubbish’ is not a counter argument. Here’s a link, complete with actual counter arguments, prove it wrong or STFU…
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cosmological-argument/
It’s one page, should not be that hard.[/quote]
I cannot prove something wrong that you just pull out of your ass.
It is beyond the human experience and therefore unfalsifiable.
Incidentally, you can find my objection under point 4.[/quote]
I pulled it out of my ass? You give me far more credit than I deserve. Fair enough you admitted you can’t beat it, so what is your point?
Just so we’re clear, arguments you cannot refute and don’t believe are ‘rubbish’ or in American ‘garbage’ because you say so? You sound like a nobel laureate.
From that link:
“Since (7) follows validly, if (5) and (6) are true, the argument is sound.”
This is nonsense. If (7) follows from hypothetically true premises (5) and (6), then the argument is VALID, not sound. Soundness arises if, in actuality, the premises hold to be true.
Other than that, good stuff.
Edit: nevermind haha. Read it too fast and missed the commas.
I want to read that whole link later.
For now all I’ll say is that I don’t understand why the notion of causality is applied to the universe itself. We don’t know if the universe has a container, if there’s an “outside” or a “before.” You can’t separate these concepts from the dimensions of space and time. The sections on causality don’t really address this specifically, and I’ve NEVER heard a good argument against it.
This is not to deny the possibility of a creative force, but rather to deny that there’s a sound argument in favor of it. To be fair, I believe in free will, and there doesn’t seem to be any sound argument in favor of that either.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]garcia1970 wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
By definition, God, or when arguing in this vain I prefer ‘Uncaused-Cause’ is necessarily true because the premises make it so. By definition and uncaused-cause cannot be caused, or it’s not uncaused. If God is this Uncaused-cause, he cannot be caused because it would be impossible for him to be otherwise.
[/quote]
Oooookkkkay, so I simply postulate that the universe is uncaused and viola, case closed.
Becaaauuuussse, if you say that everything needs a cause and then simply invent an uncaused cause, who has no cause, because that is how you defined him, I can do that too.
You can choose between the tooth fairy, the easter bunny and the universe itself.
Circular reasoning is circular.
[/quote]
3
That is freaking hilarious! We at least agree on something!![/quote]
That you don’t know shit about cosmology? Yep, I agree…Two peas in a pod.[/quote]
Oh please, your argument is rubbish.
[/quote]
(Yawn) Wake me when you have an actual counter argument that isn’t dumb and actually addresses the argument.
Your ad hominem is rubbish.[/quote]
What counter argument?
You claim that everything must have a cause and then immediately postulate an uncaused cause.
That is prima facie absurd and not an argument.
Also, that was not an ad hominem.
U R a poophead therefore what you said is wrong would be an ad hominem.
Your argument is rubbish was a statement of fact.[/quote]
It necessitates it, you are to thick to understand apparently, like I said prove it wrong, genius. ‘Rubbish’ is not a counter argument. Here’s a link, complete with actual counter arguments, prove it wrong or STFU…
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cosmological-argument/
It’s one page, should not be that hard.[/quote]
I cannot prove something wrong that you just pull out of your ass.
It is beyond the human experience and therefore unfalsifiable.
Incidentally, you can find my objection under point 4.[/quote]
I pulled it out of my ass? You give me far more credit than I deserve. Fair enough you admitted you can’t beat it, so what is your point?
Just so we’re clear, arguments you cannot refute and don’t believe are ‘rubbish’ or in American ‘garbage’ because you say so? You sound like a nobel laureate. [/quote]
No, arguments that are not falsifiable by design are rubbish.
Especially if they contradict themselves.
[quote]wfifer wrote:
I want to read that whole link later.
For now all I’ll say is that I don’t understand why the notion of causality is applied to the universe itself. We don’t know if the universe has a container, if there’s an “outside” or a “before.” You can’t separate these concepts from the dimensions of space and time. The sections on causality don’t really address this specifically, and I’ve NEVER heard a good argument against it.
This is not to deny the possibility of a creative force, but rather to deny that there’s a sound argument in favor of it. To be fair, I believe in free will, and there doesn’t seem to be any sound argument in favor of that either. [/quote]
You only understand causation based on temporal succession. It’s actually much simpler than that. At it’s core causes necessitate their resultant effects…The way (or direction)in which it occurs can vary but that tenet must stand, or there is no relation between to events.
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]garcia1970 wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
By definition, God, or when arguing in this vain I prefer ‘Uncaused-Cause’ is necessarily true because the premises make it so. By definition and uncaused-cause cannot be caused, or it’s not uncaused. If God is this Uncaused-cause, he cannot be caused because it would be impossible for him to be otherwise.
[/quote]
Oooookkkkay, so I simply postulate that the universe is uncaused and viola, case closed.
Becaaauuuussse, if you say that everything needs a cause and then simply invent an uncaused cause, who has no cause, because that is how you defined him, I can do that too.
You can choose between the tooth fairy, the easter bunny and the universe itself.
Circular reasoning is circular.
[/quote]
3
That is freaking hilarious! We at least agree on something!![/quote]
That you don’t know shit about cosmology? Yep, I agree…Two peas in a pod.[/quote]
Oh please, your argument is rubbish.
[/quote]
(Yawn) Wake me when you have an actual counter argument that isn’t dumb and actually addresses the argument.
Your ad hominem is rubbish.[/quote]
What counter argument?
You claim that everything must have a cause and then immediately postulate an uncaused cause.
That is prima facie absurd and not an argument.
Also, that was not an ad hominem.
U R a poophead therefore what you said is wrong would be an ad hominem.
Your argument is rubbish was a statement of fact.[/quote]
It necessitates it, you are to thick to understand apparently, like I said prove it wrong, genius. ‘Rubbish’ is not a counter argument. Here’s a link, complete with actual counter arguments, prove it wrong or STFU…
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cosmological-argument/
It’s one page, should not be that hard.[/quote]
I cannot prove something wrong that you just pull out of your ass.
It is beyond the human experience and therefore unfalsifiable.
Incidentally, you can find my objection under point 4.[/quote]
I pulled it out of my ass? You give me far more credit than I deserve. Fair enough you admitted you can’t beat it, so what is your point?
Just so we’re clear, arguments you cannot refute and don’t believe are ‘rubbish’ or in American ‘garbage’ because you say so? You sound like a nobel laureate. [/quote]
No, arguments that are not falsifiable by design are rubbish.
Especially if they contradict themselves.
[/quote]
Oh? Where is the contradiction?
[quote]pat wrote:
You only understand causation based on temporal succession. It’s actually much simpler than that. At it’s core causes necessitate their resultant effects…The way (or direction)in which it occurs can vary but that tenet must stand, or there is no relation between to events.[/quote]
I mean, it’s fine to say that, but saying it doesn’t make it true.
I could say the same to you: it’s actually much simpler. You’re positing this uncaused cause, when the easier explanation is that causality isn’t absolute.
Time flows in the direction of increasing entropy. Otherwise everything is completely reversible, and causes are indistinguishable from effects. The cause-effect relationship doesn’t exist without the arrow of time. This idea doesn’t become invalid just because it’s not something we can readily envisage.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]garcia1970 wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
By definition, God, or when arguing in this vain I prefer ‘Uncaused-Cause’ is necessarily true because the premises make it so. By definition and uncaused-cause cannot be caused, or it’s not uncaused. If God is this Uncaused-cause, he cannot be caused because it would be impossible for him to be otherwise.
[/quote]
Oooookkkkay, so I simply postulate that the universe is uncaused and viola, case closed.
Becaaauuuussse, if you say that everything needs a cause and then simply invent an uncaused cause, who has no cause, because that is how you defined him, I can do that too.
You can choose between the tooth fairy, the easter bunny and the universe itself.
Circular reasoning is circular.
[/quote]
3
That is freaking hilarious! We at least agree on something!![/quote]
That you don’t know shit about cosmology? Yep, I agree…Two peas in a pod.[/quote]
Oh please, your argument is rubbish.
[/quote]
(Yawn) Wake me when you have an actual counter argument that isn’t dumb and actually addresses the argument.
Your ad hominem is rubbish.[/quote]
What counter argument?
You claim that everything must have a cause and then immediately postulate an uncaused cause.
That is prima facie absurd and not an argument.
Also, that was not an ad hominem.
U R a poophead therefore what you said is wrong would be an ad hominem.
Your argument is rubbish was a statement of fact.[/quote]
It necessitates it, you are to thick to understand apparently, like I said prove it wrong, genius. ‘Rubbish’ is not a counter argument. Here’s a link, complete with actual counter arguments, prove it wrong or STFU…
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cosmological-argument/
It’s one page, should not be that hard.[/quote]
I cannot prove something wrong that you just pull out of your ass.
It is beyond the human experience and therefore unfalsifiable.
Incidentally, you can find my objection under point 4.[/quote]
I pulled it out of my ass? You give me far more credit than I deserve. Fair enough you admitted you can’t beat it, so what is your point?
Just so we’re clear, arguments you cannot refute and don’t believe are ‘rubbish’ or in American ‘garbage’ because you say so? You sound like a nobel laureate. [/quote]
No, arguments that are not falsifiable by design are rubbish.
Especially if they contradict themselves.
[/quote]
Oh? Where is the contradiction?[/quote]
You claim that everything has a cause and that it all started with a god.
What caused him/it/whatever?
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]garcia1970 wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
By definition, God, or when arguing in this vain I prefer ‘Uncaused-Cause’ is necessarily true because the premises make it so. By definition and uncaused-cause cannot be caused, or it’s not uncaused. If God is this Uncaused-cause, he cannot be caused because it would be impossible for him to be otherwise.
[/quote]
Oooookkkkay, so I simply postulate that the universe is uncaused and viola, case closed.
Becaaauuuussse, if you say that everything needs a cause and then simply invent an uncaused cause, who has no cause, because that is how you defined him, I can do that too.
You can choose between the tooth fairy, the easter bunny and the universe itself.
Circular reasoning is circular.
[/quote]
3
That is freaking hilarious! We at least agree on something!![/quote]
That you don’t know shit about cosmology? Yep, I agree…Two peas in a pod.[/quote]
Oh please, your argument is rubbish.
[/quote]
(Yawn) Wake me when you have an actual counter argument that isn’t dumb and actually addresses the argument.
Your ad hominem is rubbish.[/quote]
What counter argument?
You claim that everything must have a cause and then immediately postulate an uncaused cause.
That is prima facie absurd and not an argument.
Also, that was not an ad hominem.
U R a poophead therefore what you said is wrong would be an ad hominem.
Your argument is rubbish was a statement of fact.[/quote]
It necessitates it, you are to thick to understand apparently, like I said prove it wrong, genius. ‘Rubbish’ is not a counter argument. Here’s a link, complete with actual counter arguments, prove it wrong or STFU…
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cosmological-argument/
It’s one page, should not be that hard.[/quote]
I cannot prove something wrong that you just pull out of your ass.
It is beyond the human experience and therefore unfalsifiable.
Incidentally, you can find my objection under point 4.[/quote]
I pulled it out of my ass? You give me far more credit than I deserve. Fair enough you admitted you can’t beat it, so what is your point?
Just so we’re clear, arguments you cannot refute and don’t believe are ‘rubbish’ or in American ‘garbage’ because you say so? You sound like a nobel laureate. [/quote]
No, arguments that are not falsifiable by design are rubbish.
Especially if they contradict themselves.
[/quote]
Oh? Where is the contradiction?[/quote]
You claim that everything has a cause and that it all started with a god.
What caused him/it/whatever?
[/quote]
He believes god is an uncaused cause.
Which of course contradicts the “Law” that everything has a cause.