Who is God?

[Inferno]

HWIN, I'm just getting a big, white square... Can you post a link?

 

[Frenger]

It's tempting and although I am flattered you'd ask me to debate with you, I must declaine for the following reasons.

1 ) I am still learning how to use the quote system! :lol:

Pressing "quote" is fairly tricky.

2 ) I have very little time. (note how long it takes me to respond to posts and how many of them I must just ignore as I have no time to explain complex issues.

I assumed you'd ignored those because they dismantled your argument and you had no idea what you were talking about.

3 ) I don't even have internet access at home. I am just a poor boy.

That's no good chappy. Sorry about that.

4 ) Given the obvious unreasonableness of people in this forum I think I would be setting myself up for dissapointment even If I did present something absolutely irrefutable.

This is an open forum, anyone can read it. How people react on this forum is not the end of it, plus, there isn't anything you have said so far that would lead me to believe you could say anything coherent, let alone irrefutable.

5 ) My autistic son needs my attention

That's fair enough. Family does come first.

just as much as atheists but my family comes first.

Sorry, but in what respect do atheists need your attention?

Call me selfish but I must decline a debate for now. Maybe one day I would like to.But until then I will just engage in forum discussions when I can and leave it at that.

Not selfish at all, it was only an offer and you can decline it for any reasons you like.

If I did say yes how does that work anyway? Some are very kind enough to call me fucking idiot and explain to me how quotes work, so, maybe you would be kind enough to tell me how a debate works?

We would have a debate thread set up where only me and you could post. We would agree on a title, a word count and a time limit. Moderators could post on but only if we break any rules. After the debate is over it would be moved to the debate archive thread for future reference.

There would also be a thread set up to discuss the debate that neither me or you could post in, however we would be able to view it.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

HWIN, I'm just getting a big, white square... Can you post a link?

I can.

 

[Inferno]

HWIN, I'm just getting a big, white square... Can you post a link?

I can.

Thanks. You forgot a - in the first link. It's "-8Jru3..." and not "8Jru3..."

 

[IBSpify]

Honestly this is what having a discusion with Joseph is like to me

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Thanks. You forgot a - in the first link. It's "-8Jru3..." and not "8Jru3..."

Thanks. I went back and fixed the original post.

 

[Josephhasfun01]

what is the hypothesis of Krauss? Please explain and I'd be happy to debunk his nonsense.

If you do want to, please open a new thread. Here is Lawrence Krauss' talk on the subject:

I don't have time to watch a video. The reason I ask what I Krauss's hyposthesis is because I don't think that you understand what he is even talking about. I happen to know what his theory is already, I just want to see if you understand it. So give me something to work with other than a video.

 

[australopithecus]

Let me guess, you know you're right, so you're assuming we're wrong. Right?

 

[Inferno]

I don't have time to watch a video. The reason I ask what I Krauss's hyposthesis is because I don't think that you understand what he is even talking about. I happen to know what his theory is already, I just want to see if you understand it. So give me something to work with other than a video.

You can also buy his book... A really really really condensed version can be found here. But if you already know Krauss's hypothesis (is it only his, though?), then you can stop dancing and deliver some proper criticism.
I've got a few posts over at "thearrogantatheist" forum where I detail what it is, but tbh I can't be arsed searching through my nearly 7k posts there... If you want to rebut the hypothesis, please do so without resulting to your silly tactics.

 

[Darkprophet232]

I don't have time to watch a video. The reason I ask what I Krauss's hyposthesis is because I don't think that you understand what he is even talking about. I happen to know what his theory is already, I just want to see if you understand it. So give me something to work with other than a video.

That you can't even spell hypothesis correctly half the time and have as of yet demonstrated no true understanding of even elementary physics reveals that this is a child's gambit.

I'm not sure if it has a technical name, but when a child has to lie to feel that he can fit in with other children, and when he he gets called out on the lie, he uses this defense as a way to get the other children to inform him of what he should know, and he can continue lying based on what he was told.

Based on your conduct up till this point, I have no qualms calling a duck a duck, or in this case a liar a liar.

At this point you have two options:

1) Prove me wrong by demonstrating your knowledge of physics ( something you have yet to do).
2) Stop trying to talk as some kind of authority on topics you have not thoroughly researched on your own and then lying when you get called out on your ignorance.

 

[CosmicJoghurt]

I don't have time to watch a video. The reason I ask what I Krauss's hyposthesis is because I don't think that you understand what he is even talking about. I happen to know what his theory is already, I just want to see if you understand it. So give me something to work with other than a video.

You can also buy his book... A really really really condensed version can be found here. But if you already know Krauss's hypothesis (is it only his, though?), then you can stop dancing and deliver some proper criticism.
I've got a few posts over at "thearrogantatheist" forum where I detail what it is, but tbh I can't be arsed searching through my nearly 7k posts there... If you want to rebut the hypothesis, please do so without resulting to your silly tactics.

This?

 

[Inferno]

This?

I remember having a longer post but yes, that's one of them.

 

[CosmicJoghurt]

This?

I remember having a longer post but yes, that's one of them.

This?

Or this?

 

[Inferno]

Possibly. If you click on the date of the post, you can jump directly to the post in question, as opposed to only the thread.

Therefore:
this and this.

Thanks for finding it though, I wouldn't have had the patience...

 

[CosmicJoghurt]

Possibly. If you click on the date of the post, you can jump directly to the post in question, as opposed to only the thread.

Therefore:
this and this.

Thanks for finding it though, I wouldn't have had the patience...

I have an interest in the wonders of Google searching. Thank you for the incentive.

 

[Frenger]

what is the hypothesis of Krauss? Please explain and I'd be happy to debunk his nonsense.

I don't have time to watch a video. The reason I ask what I Krauss's hyposthesis is because I don't think that you understand what he is even talking about. I happen to know what his theory is already, I just want to see if you understand it. So give me something to work with other than a video.

So Joe, I have started a thread for you in which you can debunk Lawrence Krauss.

Have fun

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

Josephhasfun01 wrote:Sorry, but I must be behind on the scientific proof that would justify your argument that there are many universes. Care to interject? Show me proof of this intersection of multiple universes. Where and when and by whom was it observed?

There is no proof, yet

You admit there is no proof, yet you still believe? Sounds like you have a lot of faith!
Is it unreasonable to have faith in things you have no proof for?
I must say that this discussion with you is becoming less and less objective, therefore, less productive.

1. Straw-man. I never stated I believed in it. At best, there are reasons to postulate the many hypothesis, but as I and many others have stated, We don't know!
2. Projection. It is your position that is grounded in nothing but faith.

I have never stated that "nothing could be philosophically proven", what I stated is "nothing could be philosophically proven to exist" which are 2 completely different statements.

It's exciting watching you back pedal!

Never back pedaled on this. You can look at my original post, and every single post regarding this point. They all state the same thing.

To try and prove the existence of anything philosophically is impossible.

You're saying that "anything" cannot be proven to exist through philosophy which certainly implies 'all things' including things pertaining to philosophy. You have certainly contradicted yourself. While it is true that you cannot 'prove' something to 'exist' in the sense of a tangible object through philosophy, you can however, prove something to exist in the abstract sense of the word "exist."

1. Straw-man. I have already given myself the trouble of distinguishing the different forms of the usage of the word exist, and I have specifically the difference between the physical and the conceptual.
2. Equivocation. Despite having been corrected on this, you still insist in this error. The obvious reason why you do this being, because your argument couldn't possibly sound sensible otherwise and you have no arguments left.

I would suggest you define "exists" in order to squirm your way out of the mess you have gotten yourself into.

Exist - Something which has a referent in physical reality.

I am such a nice guy to help you out as I have already pointed you in the right direction. BTW God can be proven to 'exist' using philosophy to 'exist' because He is not a concrete object.

It is an absurd and self contradictory assertion. Just so you can appreciate your own stupidity, let me translate that in words that you can understand:
"God can be proven to exist using philosophy because he does not exist."
Yes, you are that stupid.

I have yet to see anyone coherently refute the 'immaterial' argument. The immaterial laws in which the universe follows theoretically 'exist'. Moving on.

1. The immaterial argument was already refute despite your protests.
2. What you mean is "conceptually exist", "theoretically exists" means something different. Anyways what you need is a "physically exist" for your argument even to have a meaning.

There are many problems with the rest of your argument. My biggest problem is of a personal matter-I would rather have you quote me then restate in what I said in your own words via a numeric format.
Most of your argument is of no importance to address because all I need to do is refute just one thing and that is number 2. But I see I should also address number seven.

Then, you have already failed before you even started. Because 2 was not a point that TBS was defending, your main problem was with 1.
Number 2 was rather my point, that even if I were to allow your straw-man, your argument would still be nothing but an appeal to ridicule.

2. There is nothing incoherent about "the universe always existed and time having a beginning".

Here is what I said, ". If time had a beginning then how could the universe have not had a beginning?"

No, here is what I was responding to:

Scott contradicts his own view by stating that the universe has always existed yet time had a beginning according to the big bang.

Which states something different.
"Always existed" and "not having a beginning" are 2 different things.

2) Here is the fatal flaw with saying that something has always existed: In order for something to always exist it would need to have never had a beginning. (...) It's not an argument from ignorance because we know philosophically that something that always exists never had a beginning and will never have an end.

1. Actually not. Always existed means that there is no state in which it does not exist. Having a beginning means that it exists a first state in which it exists.
If X always existed and the number of states is finite, it means that X both always existed an had a beginning.
Same thing applies for "having an end".
2. It is an argument from ignorance! You know it philosophically?
a) You are completely inept when it comes to philosophy.
b) You have not demonstrated it, philosophically or otherwise.
c) it is wrong.
I think what you mean is. "I pulled this out of my ass and I refuse to accept otherwise."

From the perspective of theology,

Why should I care about what theology has to say?

If there is no time before the Universe existed, what it means is that there is no state that precedes the Universe, and this means that no state exists where God exists but the Universe doesn't, and this means that God couldn't have cause the Universe to exist.

But you're wrong. There is a timeless state! An infinite state!

1. That is incoherent, meaningless.
2. That is also special pleading in order to exempt your concept of God from observing the rules of logic.

You never heard that God is eternal or infinite? Time did not exist until the Big Bang! God caused the Big Bang! Therefore God caused time. However just because God caused time does not mean that He is restricted by time. He remains outside of time! That is why God is able to see the end of time for us. That's why God is said to have foreknowledge in the bible! God is outside the universe and can manipulate the natural laws which He created and thus miracles are possible! I thought I'd throw that in so you can have something else to argue about since your previous objections are invalid.

1. There is no working concept of action without time. Action without time is incoherent. Without time she can't do anything, this is the third time I have corrected you on this.
2. Your theological ideas of God is of no relevance to me. As far as I am concerned he could be a backer named Bob who escaped to the circus at age 12.
3. As explained, the laws of physics are descriptive and not prescriptive.

c) Yes, a,b and c are not coherent. Thanks for being redundant and asserting that my argument stands as good quality.

Your arguments can not both be incoherent and stand in good quality.
You are grasping for straws. I'm not one of your idiot friends you generally lead with, I will not overlook the fact that you are wrong if you distract me long enough.

Explain to me how 'Vilenkin's Cosmic' Vision is plausible? I can't read Scotts mind as well as you can but I believe "Many Worlds Interpretation" you are referring to Vilenkin's Cosmic Vision?

If you want to know more about the subject, read a book on string theory.

I wish I knew what Scott was talking about. Actually I don't believe Scott even knows what he is talking about! It's fascinating that you can figure out what's on Scotts' mind without being able to read it! You must also be a good judge of character to know Scott well enough to read his mind.

Well, if you don't believe me, you can just ask him.

 

[Josephhasfun01]

I don't have time to watch a video. The reason I ask what I Krauss's hyposthesis is because I don't think that you understand what he is even talking about. I happen to know what his theory is already, I just want to see if you understand it. So give me something to work with other than a video.

That you can't even spell hypothesis correctly half the time and have as of yet demonstrated no true understanding of even elementary physics reveals that this is a child's gambit.

I'm not sure if it has a technical name, but when a child has to lie to feel that he can fit in with other children, and when he he gets called out on the lie, he uses this defense as a way to get the other children to inform him of what he should know, and he can continue lying based on what he was told.

Based on your conduct up till this point, I have no qualms calling a duck a duck, or in this case a liar a liar.

At this point you have two options:

1) Prove me wrong by demonstrating your knowledge of physics ( something you have yet to do).
2) Stop trying to talk as some kind of authority on topics you have not thoroughly researched on your own and then lying when you get called out on your ignorance.

You apparently like ranting on and on about nothing. calling some one a liar is fallacious. You should know better! I did not realize this was the league of spelling! If your argument is a mispell words sometimes therefore I am always wrong, then you have a lot to learn.

 

[australopithecus]

No the argument would be; if you can't even be bothered to spell check and proof read your posts, then why should be expect a higher standard when it comes to you critically evaluating your own arguments.

 

[Josephhasfun01]

No the argument would be; if you can't even be bothered to spell check and proof read your posts, then why should be expect a higher standard when it comes to you critically evaluating your own arguments.

Non sequitur