"I don't know" - Is that so hard to comprehend?

[Fonceai]

Quote by: Isherwood I suppose that reduces them to the marketing commodity they really are.

"Hi, is this Theist Customer Service?"

"I'm not happy with my Catholic God."

"No, I never got a receipt. The Catholic God was given to me and I decided I don't want it."

"Well I don't know who paid for it. Can I just get store credit?"

"Why do I need to trade it in? What if I just don't want one?"

Heh heh.

Quote by: Kame false assumption that a "creator of the universe" violates any natural laws.

Careful. Now you're skirting the edge of the Redefinition Fallacy.

You've already done it by applying a specific definition of gods in order to support your argument.

You're going to do it again if you start defining the universe.

[Kamehameha34]

You've already done it by applying a specific definition of gods in order to support your argument.

Careful - You're pursuing the same argument as Zhavric, and it was just as fallacious then.

Show me any definition of "god" I've adhered to, other than "creator of the universe".

[Fonceai]

Quote by: Kame Careful - You're pursuing the same argument as Zhavric, and it was just as fallacious then.

By trying to be cute you're being a resounding ass. Try curbing your immaturity for just a second and just don't put it in your posts.

Quote by: Kame Show me any definition of "god" I've adhered to, other than "creator of the universe".

You haven't... that's my point.

You are using a very specific definition because it serves your purposes, but there are other definitions that cause your argument to be false. That's Redefinition.

[Kamehameha34]

By trying to be cute you're being a resounding ass. Try curbing your immaturity for just a second and just don't put it in your posts.

By trying to be [blunt] you're being a resounding ass. Try curbing your [self-righteousness] for just a second and just don't put it in your posts.

Let's not pursue this avenue of discussion, eh?

You haven't... that's my point. You are using a very specific definition because it serves your purposes, but there are other definitions that cause your argument to be false. That's Redefinition.

I'm not interested in other definitions - they don't have anything to do with this discussion. They are different concepts. I'm using a word that accurately conveys the concept I'm discussing.


For example, let's say one definition of "elephant" was "unicorn". Does the claim "elephants exist" contradict the claim "unicorns do not exist"? It would if you took the word "elephant" out of context, because context is the only clue for words with multiple definitions. It's my impression that the context accurately portrays my thoughts.

[Fonceai]

Quote by: Kame I'm not interested in other definitions - they don't have anything to do with this discussion. They are different concepts. I'm using a word that accurately conveys the concept I'm discussing.

So you want people to agree with your specific and exclusive definition of both God and the Universe so that they can disagree with your conclusion?

Quote by: Kame By trying to be [blunt] you're being a resounding ass. Try curbing your [self-righteousness] for just a second and just don't put it in your posts.

Can't you take a hint?

Stop acting your age and just learn to not post that kind of nonsense. Just don't do it. Just stop. It's simple. Start typing it, then realize that if the exact words were repeated to you that you would think them derogatory... then don't post them.

It happened to me just this past weekend in a thread, and I stopped, and apologized. It's not hard to do... and you need to start doing it... because the attitude is not cool considering the mods leaning towards less leniency.

[Jack]

I'm not going to discuss this with you if you're going to continue with the false assumption that a "creator of the universe" violates any natural laws.

What, you're going to take your toys and go home? Come on, think.
We have no evidence that the universe was created, it came into being by means of natural processes. To suggest any type of creator is to suggest an entity that would violate natural processes and laws. What else is a creator than an entity? If you accept the idea of a creator, then you're at least conditionally a theist.

[Kamehameha34]

So you want people to agree with your specific and exclusive definition of both God and the Universe so that they can disagree with your conclusion?

No, they have to acknowledge the fact that their definition is irrelevant in my context.

Stop acting your age and just learn to not post that kind of nonsense. Just don't do it. Just stop. It's simple. Start typing it, then realize that if the exact words were repeated to you that you would think them derogatory... then don't post them. It happened to me just this past weekend in a thread, and I stopped, and apologized. It's not hard to do... and you need to start doing it... because the attitude is not cool considering the mods leaning towards less leniency.

And I've been told I need a thicker skin :eek:

If you think something I say is offensive, then don't take it seriously.

[Fonceai]

Quote by: Kame No, they have to acknowledge the fact that their definition is irrelevant in my context.

Quote by: Kame If you think something I say is offensive, then don't take it seriously.

Noted.

Since you always conduct yourself that way, you won't be taken seriously. I'll take you as though you are an immature child.

Or... maybe... if you want to be taken seriously, you shouldn't say things that are offensive.

Just a suggestion. In the meantime, I won't take you seriously... as I'm sure others won't, either.

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: Isherwood What, you're going to take your toys and go home? Come on, think. We have no evidence that the universe was created, it came into being by means of natural processes. To suggest any type of creator is to suggest an entity that would violate natural processes and laws. What else is a creator than an entity? If you accept the idea of a creator, then you're at least conditionally a theist.

No evidence for something =/= The opposite of "something"'s cementation into natural law.

We also have no evidence that it came into being by means of natural processes. We have mathematical evidence of a bulk, but we don't know what propels the universi, or if they're manipulatable.

A "god", by the contextual definition, can be as simple as a scientist who learns how to manipulate the conditions of the recreation of the big bang.

[rez]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 A "god", by the contextual definition, can be as simple as a scientist who learns how to manipulate the conditions of the recreation of the big bang.

In this context, then I would think you would be unable to know. You would be a strong agnostic in this case...

[Kamehameha34]

So, because you think we'd be unable to know, I'm a strong agnostic?

[Fonceai]

Sound very similar to you thinking something and calling someone else by a certain classification.

[rez]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 So, because you think we'd be unable to know, I'm a strong agnostic?

I am trying to figure out how humans would be able to find out if our universe was created in a science lab. Do you think it is possible?

[Kamehameha34]

If I say that I believe in the Christian god, and I deny being a theist, is the person who tell me that I'm a theist telling me what I think? No, they're defining my thoughts with a word.

You have to understand the difference between telling someone "You believe in the Christian god" and "Because you believe in the Christian god, you are a theist."

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: rez I am trying to figure out how humans would be able to find out if our universe was created in a science lab. Do you think it is possible?

I have no evidence for or against such a claim. All I can say is that I currently don't know.

[rez]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 I have no evidence for or against such a claim. All I can say is that I currently don't know.

Humans don't know much and it seems as though you are unwilling to find out.

[Kamehameha34]

No, I'm perfectly willing to view any evidence. I'm just not willing to make any assumptions.

[Fonceai]

What a cop-out answer.

Is it possible that someday humans will be able, in a science lab, to find out if our universe was created?

Or is it possible that someday humans will be able to find out if our universe was created in a science lab?

Regardless, saying "I don't know" is stupid. Why not just say, "Unless our existence is ended, we'll eventually find out?"

[Kamehameha34]

Do I know?

No.

Any answer other than that is a stupid answer.

[rez]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Any answer other than that is a stupid answer.

So you are saying people are unable to make an educated guess or a sound prediction...they would be just stupid, right?