Hi Perry,
Your logic is schocking to the extent that you cannot even form an original opinion when invited to do so can you? The extent that you go to avoid clear invitations to support your own contentions is simply breathtatking in their degree of evasiveness.
So, a liar, as you clearly demonstrated in that other thread, and a hypocrite too. You have left at least EIGHT questions unanswered on the other thread, and you have the temerity to try to accuse me of evasion? If you examine this thread, hypocrite, you'll see I asked you questions first, and you have failed to respond to them. Out of your own mouth you condemn yourself.
What a waste of what otherwise might have been a mind with an actual contribution to the furtherance of human endeavor. You seem to have questions about a great many things. If you can't provide a comment of Quantum mechanics then don't. I admitted that I don't know a lot about it. Now you're upset that I don't.... a line of reasoning so typical for rage-aholics. I provide a snippet, you don't like that either. You could have offered your take on it, you didn't. As far as I know`it explains how something appeared from nothing. If that is the case, then there is no reason to believe in infinites, intelligent or otherwise. That supports your position silly.
Why don't you provide a source you personally feel better about?
There was nothing wrong with the source Perry, I didn't say there was. Again you fabricate my opinions for me. How... dishonest of you. It's just in view of the proven fact you lie and deceive in discussions, I thought it best to make to clear it's considered polite to give credit when making quotations, as I wouldn't want to hear you whine about how unfair it was people thought you were plageristic. Given the accuracy of information you have used to support your 'arguements' elsewhere, I'm afraid I cannot take anything you say seriously unless I am able to back-up your claims by going to your sources.
I know I find it very frustrating engaging in discussion with someone who is dishonest, evasive, hypocritical, and who uses arguementative techniques repetatively rather than actually engaging in a debate. I also know from experienece that if someone has to cut and paste entire extracts of a scientific work to support or discuss an arguement, it means that they can't present an abstract of it.
If you don't understand a subject sufficiently to provide a condensed explaination or summation when you bring it up in conversation, you probably don't understand it enough to talk about it decently.
Put it this way; in a bar, if you tried to read a page or two of a book to make a point or explain something, you would be laughed at. You would be expected to know what you were talking about. On the Internet, just because the technology allows you to present an 'arguement' with a few mouse clicks, the expectation of knowing what you are talking about is still there.
Personally, I think there is no 'proof' or 'resolution' to be found at this stage in our knowledge of elementary physics or cosmology. At some point there may be. If you can demonstarte that there is some 'proof' or resolution in these subjects, please do so, preferably in your own words.
However, the lack of resolution in these areas does not mean that there is no proof or resolution for me. In addition to the fact no one has ever satisfactorily explained why god cannot be proved, there are other factors. Christian Biblegod, for example, is against multiple sexual partners and homosexuality.
Modern science shows us that our sexual biology acts in a way that actually either counters or encourages multiple sexual partners, and that homosexuality has a large genetic component.
It is illogical to conclude therefore, that the Bible is in anyway inspired, or that the entity it describes actually exists, as one would hope that god would set laws for humans in line with their biological paterns of behaviour. There may be other idiations of god that are true, but the Bible rules itself out on the first page, and pretty regulary thereafter.
This I love;
As far as an intelligent First Cause requireing special pleading, in my opinion it doesn't if presented as a choice of belief. If presented as a fact of logic, it surely does.
So, if you just decide it is true, then it is, but if you want to have any evidence, then it isn't. So, in other words, your statement regarding an intelligent infinate first cause not requiring special pleading is untrue to anyone other than people who decide to believe because they want to. Great, that is a HUGE contribution. Good thing you realise this yourself;
I have never dogmatically promoted that. I already admit that it cannot be proven. And, you do agree with that correct? Insert answer here:_________.
At the risk of repeating myself, there is no proof of god. Having at long last had the courtesy to answer one question, could you please explain why you cannot prove god?
Abaddon, you don't like to answer straight forward questions because you are not interested in learning in my opinion. You don't like having your answers examined. It appears you are simply interested in promoting a liberal agenda from the gist of your posts. There is nothing wrong with that. I repeat THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT. But, you will always be challenged when your comments are bigoted, as they sadly so often are.
More vacuous posturing Perry; as I've said before, on the evidence of just a few threads both I and ther feel that you do not answer questions, and I have evidence that you fabricate 'facts' to support your 'arguements', and that you knowingly make false statements about what others have said or think. You can lecture me all you like, but until you stop behaving like a deceitful hypocrite, do you seriously expect me to place any value in your opinion of me as a person? And when you carefully avoid elsewhere answering questions regarding your own bigotry (at the time I write this, anyway), I think any accusations thrown at others can be taken with a kilo of salt. You can always give me an example of my bigotry if you like...
So, back to the issue. I'm going to only ask you only two questions. These two questions will be a litmus test to see if you are willing to be honest. Please answer with a simple yes or no and then qualify your answer all you like. Whether you believe it or not I really am interested in peering inside the reasoning of your mind. You seem to have much potential to offer this board.
Weasel words Perry.
Question #1
Do you believe that the universe is a result of infinite cause and effect events; or did it happen spontaneosly from nothing?
Both, but it depends how you define 'nothing' and 'spontaneosly'.
From a lay-person's point of view, the Universe could be said to have arrisen spontaneously from nothing. It would seem however that this is just how it seems, and that the origin of the Universe, indeed quite probably of many Universes, was predicatable given the speculated state existing 'before' what we call the Big Bang, and that development since then within this Universe has been a consequence of 'infinite cause and effect events' constrained by the physical laws of this Universe.
Question # 2
How do you arrive at that conclusion?
How can I answer that yes or no? God Perry, you can't even ask a question without making a mistake!!
I'll be fair. This conclusion is based upon the fact there is no real resolution of initial origins that most people can understand. We are presented with two basic theories, one involving 'faith' in mathematicians, for want of another word, the other involving faith in theologians. Both provide explainations for our origins. Both cannot 'prove' a thing... although if they ever do get round to creating a Universe in a laboratory, then the mathematicians will have far more proof then the theologians, unless god turns up to back them up.
From this inauspicious start, we then follow the two competing theories, the teleological and the non-teleological.
It is THIS that makes me feel it is more likely the Universe did NOT start as the result of the action of any entity of any description whatsoever.
There is not, nor has there ever been any proof that the Universe is teleological. If god existed, this is an absurd and illogical state of affairs, as what reason could god have for so effectively hiding its existence?
To summerise, I feel if there was a concerned god with a plan, logically this would be provable. It is not. Therefore, either there is no god, or god is not concerned with us and has no plan for us, in which case its existence is neither here or there. There is a third option, that god does exist, but has made sure if cannot be proved, and yet still claims to be concerned and to have a plan for us. This I term the 'god is an asshole' option, as it's a little ridiculous, and I don't really believe there IS a third option, but you're welcome to try and support it if you wish
As I base my arguement on this logic rather than upon any particular strand of scienece, any attempt at addressing this arguement should concentrate on finding faults in the logic, or providing proof of god.