Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Jayhawker Soule · 05-09-2002, 08:06 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by WJ:
Do you know what comprises Absolute Truth to your own existence? To your own belief? You don't, do you!? If you do, convince me *why* you exist.

First, convince us why you and your position are relevant.

Koyaanisqatsi · 05-09-2002, 08:13 AM

What is wrong with you? Seriously. WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU?

Quote:

Originally posted by WJ:
Hey, I just caught this. you said;

"We don't believe in childish fairy tales. You do. It is therefore your f*cking case and it is now closed."

You used the word 'belief' I thought atheism was not based upon a belief?

We don't believe. DON'T. DO NOT.

ABSENCE of...

oh fuck this. You're a pointless waste of space.

WJ · 05-09-2002, 08:14 AM

Free!

Whenever you feel confident enough to defend your [false] assertions, insert a quarter and call ME! Who else here cares to defend Free's position?

What does it mean for a thing or Being to exist? If you can't answer it, what follows for the atheist?

The default position says no thing. And if it says nothing, AJ is correct; you are not. Otherwise, explain in absolute terms that God doesn't exist? You can't. You're full of horse poopy!

Walrus
---------
AJ, he goo boy!

<img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />

philechat · 05-09-2002, 08:17 AM

WJ:

You attributed it to the wrong person.

But that's not the point. I don't think I exist as "an individual, unchanging entity" per se

(I mean in the Cartesian way). An unchanging "Identity" is as much an illusion as God.

Sorry...I didn't make it too clear

Why does God's omniscience entails the existence of Absolute Truth:

1) If we are entities created by an omniscient God, then God has knowledge of all of the attributes of His creation.
2) Such knowledge entails Truth to be objective and absolute, since it's contained within the knowledge of an omniscient being.

[ May 09, 2002: Message edited by: philechat ]

WJ · 05-09-2002, 08:33 AM

phile!

Good. You said;

"An unchanging "Identity" is as much an illusion as God."

What is an "identity"? An essence of existence? What are essences of physical existence? Please share your thoughts!

Walrus

philechat · 05-09-2002, 08:38 AM

Sorry...There's no such things as essenses. Essenses are defined only by the observer. All things are ever-changing, and "essense" is a human construction as to simplify the world around them (as well as themselves)

WJ · 05-09-2002, 08:48 AM

Phile!

Are you sure? How do you know this? For instance, mathematics [essences] are absolute unchanging truths in this physical world of existence. No amount of experience changes this. No? For that reason, shouldn't the atheist/physicist assert with absolute certainty that the world is rational?

You seem to suggest it is not so ordered. Why? (Why is my existence irrational?) Or, are there no timeless truths such as mathematics? Are you suggesting some sort of Berkeley-ism?

The default posiiton must be based on some-thing?

Walrus

snatchbalance · 05-09-2002, 08:50 AM

Quote:

What are essences of physical existence?

Aggregate phenomena.

[ May 09, 2002: Message edited by: snatchbalance ]

philechat · 05-09-2002, 08:55 AM

Mathematics are simply human construction. Human define its "truths" and "Falsehood", similar to language systems.

I will say for example in statistics, while each throw of the dice is irrational (chaotic), the summation of 10000 throws will yield a (near) 1/6 chance of each number.

Note that though each individual throw is irrational does not entail that the system itself is irrational. (Beware of Fallacy of Composition here)

[ May 09, 2002: Message edited by: philechat ]

WJ · 05-09-2002, 09:09 AM

Phile!

But that human construction defines physical, material existence. That is what you [the atheist] base your default position on?

If you base it on things changing, then we are back to the concept of a metaphysical God being both timeless 'and' changing-contingent? To that end, and to speak to your last comment about dice, are we not talking about of a mix of free-will, contingency, and cause and effect determinism here? Kind of off-topic, but I'm just trying to understand what you base your default position on, and have yet to receive an answer from anyone.

Walrus

05-09-2002, 08:17 AM	#124
philechat Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Mind of the Other Posts: 886	WJ: You attributed it to the wrong person. But that's not the point. I don't think I exist as "an individual, unchanging entity" per se (I mean in the Cartesian way). An unchanging "Identity" is as much an illusion as God. Sorry...I didn't make it too clear Why does God's omniscience entails the existence of Absolute Truth: 1) If we are entities created by an omniscient God, then God has knowledge of all of the attributes of His creation. 2) Such knowledge entails Truth to be objective and absolute, since it's contained within the knowledge of an omniscient being. [ May 09, 2002: Message edited by: philechat ]</p>

05-09-2002, 08:55 AM	#129
philechat Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Mind of the Other Posts: 886	Mathematics are simply human construction. Human define its "truths" and "Falsehood", similar to language systems. I will say for example in statistics, while each throw of the dice is irrational (chaotic), the summation of 10000 throws will yield a (near) 1/6 chance of each number. Note that though each individual throw is irrational does not entail that the system itself is irrational. (Beware of Fallacy of Composition here) [ May 09, 2002: Message edited by: philechat ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-09-2002, 08:14 AM	#123
WJ Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 812	Free! Whenever you feel confident enough to defend your [false] assertions, insert a quarter and call ME! Who else here cares to defend Free's position? What does it mean for a thing or Being to exist? If you can't answer it, what follows for the atheist? The default position says no thing. And if it says nothing, AJ is correct; you are not. Otherwise, explain in absolute terms that God doesn't exist? You can't. You're full of horse poopy! Walrus --------- AJ, he goo boy! <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />

05-09-2002, 08:33 AM	#125
WJ Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 812	phile! Good. You said; "An unchanging "Identity" is as much an illusion as God." What is an "identity"? An essence of existence? What are essences of physical existence? Please share your thoughts! Walrus

05-09-2002, 08:38 AM	#126
philechat Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Mind of the Other Posts: 886	Sorry...There's no such things as essenses. Essenses are defined only by the observer. All things are ever-changing, and "essense" is a human construction as to simplify the world around them (as well as themselves)

05-09-2002, 08:48 AM	#127
WJ Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 812	Phile! Are you sure? How do you know this? For instance, mathematics [essences] are absolute unchanging truths in this physical world of existence. No amount of experience changes this. No? For that reason, shouldn't the atheist/physicist assert with absolute certainty that the world is rational? You seem to suggest it is not so ordered. Why? (Why is my existence irrational?) Or, are there no timeless truths such as mathematics? Are you suggesting some sort of Berkeley-ism? The default posiiton must be based on some-thing? Walrus

05-09-2002, 09:09 AM	#130
WJ Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 812	Phile! But that human construction defines physical, material existence. That is what you [the atheist] base your default position on? If you base it on things changing, then we are back to the concept of a metaphysical God being both timeless 'and' changing-contingent? To that end, and to speak to your last comment about dice, are we not talking about of a mix of free-will, contingency, and cause and effect determinism here? Kind of off-topic, but I'm just trying to understand what you base your default position on, and have yet to receive an answer from anyone. Walrus

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.