Philosophy and other pseudo-intellectual spoutings

[thebish]

My first proposition includes god, but not the universe, so you need a second assumption: that god at some point in his eternal existence created the universe.

no, you don't. it is clear you didn't read my previous post on the matter - which is fine - but simply repeating the same argument over and over again when it has already been effectively countered and pretending you didn't see it won't lead to any progress on your part or anyone else's.

I'll repeat it for you...

your propositions stand or fall on the unspoken definition of "God" contained within them... many would argue that essential to the very being of God is God's creative action - it is not separable - so the "God" in your proposition is merely an artificial construction for the sake of argument, not one that anyone believes in. (interestingly - something you have accused others of doing on these very pages!)

the assumption of God's creativeness is inseparably part and parcel of God's "existence" - so the idea of God creating requires no extra assumption (as you assert) beyond God's mere existence.

[Prufrock]

Bollocks! You can't play the "he's magic" card.

It's one thing for something to suddenly exist, but I'm not having that it's not an extra assumption to make that thing f*cking omnipotent! The only reason that it's essential to the being of God that he has a creative action is because people assume he would. Stuff appearing is one thing. Stuff appearing and having special powers is two (at least - that the thing have a consciousness is arguably one).

That's like arguing that it would be just as likely, and require no further assumptions, that life begin as a strand of mitochondria coming into existence as it is that a horse with magic powers just pop up.

[CrazyHorse]

What a shit boring, pointless circular thread.

[thebish]

Bollocks! You can't play the "he's magic" card.

It's one thing for something to suddenly exist, but I'm not having that it's not an extra assumption to make that thing f*cking omnipotent!

I have not mentioned omnipotence or magic anywhere at all, with or without the f-word. you're simply making that up.

and - call it any flavour of bollox you like - but it is still all in the presentation - and if you were intellectually honest about it you would realise that.

what you have done is saddle yourself un-necessarily with the idea of having to demonstrate that there is an extra assumption and so the proposition can be downgraded - so you present the propositions in that way.

it isn't the only way of presenting them - as i have shown - perfectly rationally. The concept of God's existence can very easily already include God's creative force. (in much the same way that before I met you I made the assumption that you were alive - and i didn't feel I needed to make an extra assumption that your head was attached to your shoulders. To those of us who believe in God, God's creative force is as much an integral part of God's existence - not an extra assumption - as your head being attached to your shoulders is an integral part of your being alive.)

you have simply chosen to define "God" in such a way that it fits your increasingly desperate need to have an extra assumption and thus pull off some kind of triumphant hooplah about something I suspect even you have now forgotten the significance of.

the fact that that the same two propositions can be presented without any extra assumptions merely makes it plain just how vapid and ludicrous such an appeal to an extra assumption is in this case - especially when you present it as some kind of tool of inarguable logic!

[Prufrock]

With the thread title being what it is you must have been crushed! !

[Prufrock]

Bollocks! You can't play the "he's magic" card.

It's one thing for something to suddenly exist, but I'm not having that it's not an extra assumption to make that thing f*cking omnipotent!

I have not mentioned omnipotence or magic anywhere at all, with or without the f-word. you're simply making that up.

and - call it any flavour of bollox you like - but it is still all in the presentation - and if you were intellectually honest about it you would realise that.

what you have done is saddle yourself un-necessarily with the idea of having to demonstrate that there is an extra assumption and so the proposition can be downgraded - so you present the propositions in that way.

it isn't the only way of presenting them - as i have shown - perfectly rationally. The concept of God's existence can very easily already include God's creative force. (in much the same way that before I met you I made the assumption that you were alive - and i didn't feel I needed to make an extra assumption that your head was attached to your shoulders. To those of us who believe in God, God's creative force is as much an integral part of God's existence - not an extra assumption - as your head being attached to your shoulders is an integral part of your being alive.)

you have simply chosen to define "God" in such a way that it fits your increasingly desperate need to have an extra assumption and thus pull off some kind of triumphant hooplah about something I suspect even you have now forgotten the significance of.

the fact that that the same two propositions can be presented without any extra assumptions merely makes it plain just how vapid and ludicrous such an appeal to an extra assumption is in this case - especially when you present it as some kind of tool of inarguable logic!

That's not true, and it's you who has misunderstood what an assumption is in this context. An assumption in this setting is a thing you can't know whether it's true or not or how likely it is, but need it to be true for your theory to work. Accordingly, the fewer of these things you have, generally, the more likely you are to be right, as crudely there's one fewer thing to go wrong.

Before you met me you did not make the assumption I was alive, you came to the conclusion that I was alive, and that was a conclusion based on evidence. That I posted on here strongly suggested that I was alive. That I was alive strongly suggested my head was attached to my shoulders. These are questions with evidence that you can use to come to a reasoned decision. There's no point trying to base a decision on likely something is on assumptions if you've got evidence. If (I'm not sure how, but for the sake of argument) it required fewer assumptions that trees be red rather than green, it'd be daft to say that logically they were red when you've got evidence before your eyes that they're not.

When it comes to annals of time, we've got no evidence, so we can't gauge likelihood . The only evidence we do have is that there *is* stuff. That isn't an assumption. That's a conclusion based on evidence. So, to treat it like one of those maths equations where everything on each side cancels something out on the other, no matter (boom) how it's formulated, any theory of creation involving a god requires one more thing than one without.

As I've kept stressing though, it's only a guess at an answer to a question we may well never be able to answer. It's certainly not proof.

[thebish]

no - it was an assumption - I had no evidence at all that you were "alive". "strongly suggest" is not the same as evidence. you could have been a poor version of the pseudophilosobot... in fact - I am now wondering if the person i met WAS in fact the "you" that still appears on here to be a poor version of the pseudophilosobot... hmmmmmm.....

[bobo the clown]

↑↑↑ a poor version of everything tbh.

Can some fckr close this thread down before it closes the whole bleeding forum ?

[Prufrock]

no - it was an assumption - I had no evidence at all that you were "alive". "strongly suggest" is not the same as evidence. you could have been a poor version of the pseudophilosobot... in fact - I am now wondering if the person i met WAS in fact the "you" that still appears on here to be a poor version of the pseudophilosobot... hmmmmmm.....

Strongly suggest is a pretty good touchstone not just for "evidence", but for "good evidence"! That's precisely what good evidence does, strongly suggests something!

Evidence is not the same as proof. My postings on here were evidence. Not proof, and not conclusive, as you say, I could have been a bot, but it was not something you had no idea as to whether or not it was true. If I'd posted once, you'd have had very weak evidence that I was a human (a bot could easily have posted once). Given that I'd posted a lot, and over a range of topics, in a range of ways, you'd have had stronger evidence, pointing more strongly to a conclusion that I was a human. That's just not an assumption.

[thebish]

no - it was an assumption - I had no evidence at all that you were "alive". "strongly suggest" is not the same as evidence. you could have been a poor version of the pseudophilosobot... in fact - I am now wondering if the person i met WAS in fact the "you" that still appears on here to be a poor version of the pseudophilosobot... hmmmmmm.....

Strongly suggest is a pretty good touchstone not just for "evidence", but for "good evidence"! That's precisely what good evidence does, strongly suggests something!

Evidence is not the same as proof. My postings on here were evidence.

but they were not good evidence that you were alive. they were evidence that something - probably the pseudophilosobot - something not "alive" in the conventional sense - was posting under the Prufrock pseudonym.

[Hoboh]

Why don't we all admit we have not got a clue about how everything started and more than likely never will have, some have their own ideas, theories etc. others differ but none are leading to the ultimate answer.

[thebish]

↑↑↑ a poor version of everything tbh.

Can some fckr close this thread down before it closes the whole bleeding forum ?

how could one thread that you're not interested in "close the whole bleeding forum"?? what on earth are you on about?? Someone should ban/block stuff you don't want to read?? are you 8yrs old???

here's a tip - I follow this tip with many topics (eg. gaming threads, wine thread, golf thread...) - if it doesn't interest you or you don't want to read it - then - just don't read it... there is no law that says you have to read every topic and every post.

there is also a very handy "mark forum read" button.

to repeatedly post within a discussion that you are not interested in the discussion is just sad.... if you're not interested - just leave it alone - nobody would get hurt.

[TANGODANCER]

A plea for a bit of common sense:

The titles of threads mainly tell you what you're going to get in reading them. Very few folk would buy a book, even borrow one from the library on the topic of this particular thread, so why read it if it's of no interest? Occasionally mods have to glance over everything to make sure nobody's being ridiculous, over-aggressive or posting blatant trolling or wummery (made that one up...I think). That said, seventy five-year-old mountain bikers, Gameboy players, rock-rebels, would-be politicians and flab-fighters are generally a bit thin on the ground, so I rarely go there to any of said topics unless I can contribute something. Same with many others I have no connection with. That said, doesn't mean nobody else wants to go there and do these things. They have a right to do that.

Anything that comes up in red that you have no interest in, just click as read and pass on. Anybody can do the that. As thebish says, it hurts no one, but if we start making rules about others rights to have opinions on any topics whatsoever within reason, we're losing a basic right that anyone on a forum has. Let's have a bit of leniency hey? Live and let live. We're all here from sharing a support of Bolton Wanderers so let's remember that. Don't like it, don't read it. Pass on in peace.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

Why is 'science' often brought into philosophical/theological discussions when its sole purpose is to find out 'how things work'? To the best of my knowledge no scientist has ever set out to prove or disprove the existence of a creator or creators. Many scientists, including Einstein, were and are what we would call religious. I see no conflict.

Because the quest for how the universe began falls entirely within the remit of 'how things work'.
It's also entirely illogical to quote Einstein's religious beliefs, especially when his scientific work on physics sparks no contoversy, but when he strays into Cosmology and spouts irrelevancies such as "God does not play dice" then one can see his scientific/Physics mind is more advanced than his poor grasp of religious/Cosmological theories.
You might not see a conflict, but the conflict is evident to me.

[Hoboh]

What a shit boring, pointless circular thread.

Behave, I didn't start it

[jaffka]

What a shit boring, pointless circular thread.

Behave, I didn't start it

Is right though.

Seems to be a few people wanting the forum cock crown vacated by bwfci.

[thebish]

not to worry Jaffers - I can't see anyone taking that off you easily...

[jaffka]

not to worry Jaffers - I can't see anyone taking that off you easily...

jaffers is that me

[Dujon]

Why is 'science' often brought into philosophical/theological discussions when its sole purpose is to find out 'how things work'? To the best of my knowledge no scientist has ever set out to prove or disprove the existence of a creator or creators. Many scientists, including Einstein, were and are what we would call religious. I see no conflict.

Because the quest for how the universe began falls entirely within the remit of 'how things work'.
It's also entirely illogical to quote Einstein's religious beliefs, especially when his scientific work on physics sparks no contoversy, but when he strays into Cosmology and spouts irrelevancies such as "God does not play dice" then one can see his scientific/Physics mind is more advanced than his poor grasp of religious/Cosmological theories.
You might not see a conflict, but the conflict is evident to me.

If my memory serves me correctly, Spotty, that quotation comes from Einstein's ponderings over the then new quantum theories which postulated the randomness or chaos of the way-below-atomic level. I also have the idea that he eventually changed his mind on the subject. I have though to refute your statement that a conflict exists. "Science" is indeed about how things work and where we came from (in a cosmological sense) but that does not include a search for a sentient, omnipotent, creator. Perhaps there is a BOINC project working on it at this very moment; I must remember to check.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

Why do 'the Religious' bother with the Here & Now. You've got an afterlife to get on with - just top yourselves. And if that disqualifies you from joining in the.post mortum fun, well take up more dangerous sports and really go for it...