Total Posts:213|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

God will always exist

Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2014 10:53:29 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
The question of "why does anything exist at all?" will be always fundamental even if we could prove that everything can arise naturally. What does "arise naturally" even mean? It means that we observe the methods that things use to build and self sustain. Okay, but why? And how did this come about? .... No explanation. Just the fact that varying degrees of anything exist, like beauty, for example, proves that there exists an objective standard to measure such beauty. It is clearly evident to anybody that observes nature that it is beautiful. Nobody looks at a sunset and thinks "gosh, that's ugly". The nature of being shows that a perfect mode of anything must necessarily exist to judge the nature of perfection in anything.
bulproof
Posts: 25,295
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2014 10:57:54 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
God will always exist
Maybe, but he hasn't always.
He was created by stone age/bronze age humans and lots of others ever since.
And most of the ones created back then don't exist now, so the odds are against him.
The bookies would be giving long odds on that result.
bulproof
Posts: 25,295
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2014 10:59:36 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
WOW I missed that.

Beauty is objective?

Are you insane?

Beauty is as subjective as it gets.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2014 11:40:57 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/13/2014 10:59:36 AM, bulproof wrote:
WOW I missed that.

Beauty is objective?

Are you insane?

Beauty is as subjective as it gets.

Will anybody consider a shining diamond aesthetically uglier than a pile of poo? I think not sir.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2014 11:52:14 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/13/2014 11:40:57 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 10/13/2014 10:59:36 AM, bulproof wrote:
WOW I missed that.

Beauty is objective?

Are you insane?

Beauty is as subjective as it gets.

Will anybody consider a shining diamond aesthetically uglier than a pile of poo? I think not sir.

LMAO! Is brown poo or green poo more beautiful? :-)
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2014 12:00:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/13/2014 11:52:14 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 10/13/2014 11:40:57 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 10/13/2014 10:59:36 AM, bulproof wrote:
WOW I missed that.

Beauty is objective?

Are you insane?

Beauty is as subjective as it gets.

Will anybody consider a shining diamond aesthetically uglier than a pile of poo? I think not sir.

LMAO! Is brown poo or green poo more beautiful? :-)

Variety is always nice :) except maybe if it was yellow or white
SNP1
Posts: 2,406
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2014 12:12:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/13/2014 10:53:29 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
The question of "why does anything exist at all?" will be always fundamental even if we could prove that everything can arise naturally. What does "arise naturally" even mean? It means that we observe the methods that things use to build and self sustain. Okay, but why? And how did this come about? .... No explanation. Just the fact that varying degrees of anything exist, like beauty, for example, proves that there exists an objective standard to measure such beauty. It is clearly evident to anybody that observes nature that it is beautiful. Nobody looks at a sunset and thinks "gosh, that's ugly". The nature of being shows that a perfect mode of anything must necessarily exist to judge the nature of perfection in anything.

I'm sorry, but I really am starting to think you are a troll.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2014 12:17:40 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/13/2014 12:12:09 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 10/13/2014 10:53:29 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
The question of "why does anything exist at all?" will be always fundamental even if we could prove that everything can arise naturally. What does "arise naturally" even mean? It means that we observe the methods that things use to build and self sustain. Okay, but why? And how did this come about? .... No explanation. Just the fact that varying degrees of anything exist, like beauty, for example, proves that there exists an objective standard to measure such beauty. It is clearly evident to anybody that observes nature that it is beautiful. Nobody looks at a sunset and thinks "gosh, that's ugly". The nature of being shows that a perfect mode of anything must necessarily exist to judge the nature of perfection in anything.

I'm sorry, but I really am starting to think you are a troll.

That was conducive and constructive thanks.
SNP1
Posts: 2,406
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2014 12:23:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/13/2014 12:17:40 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 10/13/2014 12:12:09 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 10/13/2014 10:53:29 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
The question of "why does anything exist at all?" will be always fundamental even if we could prove that everything can arise naturally. What does "arise naturally" even mean? It means that we observe the methods that things use to build and self sustain. Okay, but why? And how did this come about? .... No explanation. Just the fact that varying degrees of anything exist, like beauty, for example, proves that there exists an objective standard to measure such beauty. It is clearly evident to anybody that observes nature that it is beautiful. Nobody looks at a sunset and thinks "gosh, that's ugly". The nature of being shows that a perfect mode of anything must necessarily exist to judge the nature of perfection in anything.

I'm sorry, but I really am starting to think you are a troll.

That was conducive and constructive thanks.

The thing is, this has been addressed on this forum time and time again. Many points that you usually bring up (not always) were addressed before you brought them up, yet you ignored that.

In my mind, you either are a troll, have no interest in paying attention to people that do not already agree with you, are extremely forgetful, or have a low comprehension level.

I am not trying to be mean, I am simply pointing out what I see.

For example, you are saying that beauty is objective. In other issues where you claim objectivity, people pointed out how it is not objective, yet you ignored it. How can anyone be sure that you won't ignore them if they point out how beauty isn't objective either?

People have explained to you how the universe can exist as is without a god, yet here you are asserting that it requires a god again, ignoring what has previously been said to you.

How can anyone expect to take your posts seriously if this is what happens?
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2014 12:32:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/13/2014 12:23:28 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 10/13/2014 12:17:40 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 10/13/2014 12:12:09 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 10/13/2014 10:53:29 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
The question of "why does anything exist at all?" will be always fundamental even if we could prove that everything can arise naturally. What does "arise naturally" even mean? It means that we observe the methods that things use to build and self sustain. Okay, but why? And how did this come about? .... No explanation. Just the fact that varying degrees of anything exist, like beauty, for example, proves that there exists an objective standard to measure such beauty. It is clearly evident to anybody that observes nature that it is beautiful. Nobody looks at a sunset and thinks "gosh, that's ugly". The nature of being shows that a perfect mode of anything must necessarily exist to judge the nature of perfection in anything.

I'm sorry, but I really am starting to think you are a troll.

That was conducive and constructive thanks.

The thing is, this has been addressed on this forum time and time again. Many points that you usually bring up (not always) were addressed before you brought them up, yet you ignored that.

In my mind, you either are a troll, have no interest in paying attention to people that do not already agree with you, are extremely forgetful, or have a low comprehension level.

I am not trying to be mean, I am simply pointing out what I see.

For example, you are saying that beauty is objective. In other issues where you claim objectivity, people pointed out how it is not objective, yet you ignored it. How can anyone be sure that you won't ignore them if they point out how beauty isn't objective either?

People have explained to you how the universe can exist as is without a god, yet here you are asserting that it requires a god again, ignoring what has previously been said to you.

How can anyone expect to take your posts seriously if this is what happens?

So by having people respond to issues I've brought up that means I should just take their word for it and move on? I always question and poke holes in things that people bring up. Since you know everything let me you ask you a few questions that you certainly have answers to.

What naturalistic phenomena caused the Big Bang?

Why has no society in the history of mankind ever accepted infant rape as morally permissible?

Why is there such inherent complex specificity and order in a universe governed by chance?

Do you think good and evil don't really exist?

Do you think time is eternal?

Why does the formation of man from dirt defy the laws of thermodynamics?

To be blunt I think it's quite arrogant to proclaim that you have all the right answers. I judge whether the answers are right or wrong based on logical coherency not appeal to presuppositional idealogy.
SNP1
Posts: 2,406
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2014 12:44:26 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/13/2014 12:32:57 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
So by having people respond to issues I've brought up that means I should just take their word for it and move on? I always question and poke holes in things that people bring up. Since you know everything let me you ask you a few questions that you certainly have answers to.

I never said to just take their word for it, but don't just ignore it and start a new thread. Don't just strawman positions.Stay on the same forum, do not ignore their points, and refute them. This is a debate website, for open minded people. If you don't even take the time to refute what is being said, then why should anyone take you seriously?

I also never claimed to know everything, but I will answer your questions as best as I can.

What naturalistic phenomena caused the Big Bang?

Depends on what you mean by Big Bang. If you mean Big Bang as start of the universe, then it is uncaused.

If you mean Big Bang as the expansion of the universe, a large quantum fluctuation in a small bubble of spacetime could easily have caused it.

Why has no society in the history of mankind ever accepted infant rape as morally permissible?

The question of yours does not make any sense. Society does not deal in morality, it deals in ethics. A society cannot accept something as moral or immoral, it can have views of what is ethical and unethical.

Why is there such inherent complex specificity and order in a universe governed by chance?

Define complex specificity in a way that is not self refuting.

Do you think good and evil don't really exist?

Good and evil are subjective, yet there are acts that should and should not be taken within a society based off of the society's ethical standards.

Do you think time is eternal?

No.

Why does the formation of man from dirt defy the laws of thermodynamics?

There isn't even evidence that man came from dirt, so the question is irrelevant.

To be blunt I think it's quite arrogant to proclaim that you have all the right answers. I judge whether the answers are right or wrong based on logical coherency not appeal to presuppositional idealogy.

I never claimed to have the right answers, but you never even spend the time trying to refute the answers people give you. I only claimed that people have given you answers that you ignore. Ignore includes not refuting. If you cannot refute the points, then don't ask the questions again.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
peaceseeker
Posts: 90
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2014 12:52:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I am the Intelligent Designer;
I am what mankind has decided to call God.
I did not come from nowhere.
I play no magic tricks on man.
I did not create the earth by casting spells.
I had a humble beginning the same as man;
My beginning was at the dawn of spirituality.
My wisdom grows as more spirits unite
After the cessation of life after much physical strife.
Throughout time I have been named God,
Allah, Jehovah, The Great Spirit, and many more.
I do not judge man for his vanity or naivety
To be the one who claims to please me the most.
I am easy to please. I require very little.
I only want you to do what is best for mankind.
I will bless you and wish you well.
I will inspire your mind and you will
Accomplish the unfathomable.
I require no worship. I need nothing from man.
I am self-sufficient. I am spirit.

Develop your spirit wisely, the best that you can.
Live your life for the betterment of man.
Your spirit will soon be with me and then
Together we will see and traverse the universe.
There are many wonders to behold,
Your spirit will soar.
You will partake in all the wisdom
That has been gathered from the beginning of time.
The stars will be your playgrounds.
You can play with the animals,
Be with your loved ones,
Listen to the greatest opera,
Stage or musical performances,
Or you can just relax next to a bubbling brook
And enjoy the scenery.
You feel no pain, despair,
Heartache, or negative emotions.
You are now One with me.
You are with the Intelligent Designer
You are with God my child.
Fly
Posts: 2,049
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2014 1:02:23 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
These threads usually go according to a playbook:

Getting too many rebuttals that cannot be cogently addressed? Start a new thread on the exact same thing and reassert the same rebutted talking points.

Not getting concrete answers to unanswered questions? Declare that as undeniable evidence for a deity!

Time for a change in the cycle:

OK, let us assume for the sake of argument that a god or gods exist. What do you expect former (for the sake of argument) atheists to do about it? What now, in other words?
"You don't have a right to be a jerk."
--Religion Forum's hypocrite extraordinaire serving up lulz
SNP1
Posts: 2,406
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2014 1:09:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/13/2014 12:32:57 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Why is there such inherent complex specificity and order in a universe governed by chance?

Also, I think that this would be a good read for you.

http://goodmath.scientopia.org...
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2014 1:22:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/13/2014 11:40:57 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 10/13/2014 10:59:36 AM, bulproof wrote:
Beauty is as subjective as it gets.

Will anybody consider a shining diamond aesthetically uglier than a pile of poo? I think not sir.

A fly would.
Fly
Posts: 2,049
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2014 1:30:08 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/13/2014 1:22:29 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 10/13/2014 11:40:57 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 10/13/2014 10:59:36 AM, bulproof wrote:
Beauty is as subjective as it gets.

Will anybody consider a shining diamond aesthetically uglier than a pile of poo? I think not sir.

A fly would.

I take exception to that.
"You don't have a right to be a jerk."
--Religion Forum's hypocrite extraordinaire serving up lulz
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2014 1:41:58 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/13/2014 12:44:26 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 10/13/2014 12:32:57 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
So by having people respond to issues I've brought up that means I should just take their word for it and move on? I always question and poke holes in things that people bring up. Since you know everything let me you ask you a few questions that you certainly have answers to.

I never said to just take their word for it, but don't just ignore it and start a new thread. Don't just strawman positions.Stay on the same forum, do not ignore their points, and refute them. This is a debate website, for open minded people. If you don't even take the time to refute what is being said, then why should anyone take you seriously?

The irony in saying that is that a vast majority of the time I am the last one who responds in my topics. In fact in an exchange with you this is how it went down:

You: "Sorry, but these are all flawed arguments. You have brought them up many times, and they always get refuted. Instead of sounding like a broken record, refute the refutations."

Me: "The only thing brought up like a broken record is that my arguments have been refuted. Stick around and we'll see if that's true." Post #314

You: [left]
http://www.debate.org...

I also never claimed to know everything, but I will answer your questions as best as I can.

Okay so don't act like your opinion is gospel. By "addressing" my posts then leaving when I offer a rebuttal doesn't make you correct.

What naturalistic phenomena caused the Big Bang?

Depends on what you mean by Big Bang. If you mean Big Bang as start of the universe, then it is uncaused.

What evidence do you have for that assertion?

If you mean Big Bang as the expansion of the universe, a large quantum fluctuation in a small bubble of spacetime could easily have caused it.

If the Big Bang was the beginning of spacetime itself, which is what the expansion of space-time suggests tracing the expansion of the zero-point singularity in reverse, then space-time couldn't have existed to cause the Big Bang. Nothing causes itself into existence.

Why has no society in the history of mankind ever accepted infant rape as morally permissible?

The question of yours does not make any sense. Society does not deal in morality, it deals in ethics. A society cannot accept something as moral or immoral, it can have views of what is ethical and unethical.

Oh so that makes perfect sense now. Ethics are not derived from morality then, right?

Why is there such inherent complex specificity and order in a universe governed by chance?

Define complex specificity in a way that is not self refuting.

It isn't. Specified complexity means that any given function is only useful as a possible outcome in a complex framework. To convey how the Giants won their last baseball game, a newspaper needs to convey very specific information using very specific arrangements of alphabetical letters. That's an example of specified-complexity.

Do you think good and evil don't really exist?

Good and evil are subjective, yet there are acts that should and should not be taken within a society based off of the society's ethical standards.

How are ethics and morality not dependent on one another?

Do you think time is eternal?

No.

Ok, so did time start with the Big Bang?

Why does the formation of man from dirt defy the laws of thermodynamics?

There isn't even evidence that man came from dirt, so the question is irrelevant.

That doesn't make my point irrelevant. How did mankind evolve from lower life forms if the amount of energy available for bio-chemical structures is on a long-run decline?

To be blunt I think it's quite arrogant to proclaim that you have all the right answers. I judge whether the answers are right or wrong based on logical coherency not appeal to presuppositional idealogy.

I never claimed to have the right answers, but you never even spend the time trying to refute the answers people give you. I only claimed that people have given you answers that you ignore. Ignore includes not refuting. If you cannot refute the points, then don't ask the questions again.

Patently false. Please look at my debates - including the one you left - to see that others are the ones that leave before addressing my questions.
DPMartin
Posts: 1,096
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2014 2:03:23 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/13/2014 11:40:57 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 10/13/2014 10:59:36 AM, bulproof wrote:
WOW I missed that.

Beauty is objective?

Are you insane?

Beauty is as subjective as it gets.

Will anybody consider a shining diamond aesthetically uglier than a pile of poo? I think not sir.

Not to a dung beetle, certainly the beetle values the pile of poo much more then the diamond.

Haven"t you ever heard beauty is in the eye of the beholder? Just like good and bad. Some times you feel like a nut, some times you don"t.

Beauty is by preference not a fact. Some people could care less about a 350 GT Shelby Mustang and another will droll over it and pay hug money for it if he can.
SNP1
Posts: 2,406
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2014 2:15:47 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/13/2014 1:41:58 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 10/13/2014 12:44:26 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 10/13/2014 12:32:57 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
So by having people respond to issues I've brought up that means I should just take their word for it and move on? I always question and poke holes in things that people bring up. Since you know everything let me you ask you a few questions that you certainly have answers to.

I never said to just take their word for it, but don't just ignore it and start a new thread. Don't just strawman positions.Stay on the same forum, do not ignore their points, and refute them. This is a debate website, for open minded people. If you don't even take the time to refute what is being said, then why should anyone take you seriously?

The irony in saying that is that a vast majority of the time I am the last one who responds in my topics. In fact in an exchange with you this is how it went down:

You: "Sorry, but these are all flawed arguments. You have brought them up many times, and they always get refuted. Instead of sounding like a broken record, refute the refutations."

Me: "The only thing brought up like a broken record is that my arguments have been refuted. Stick around and we'll see if that's true." Post #314

You: [left]
http://www.debate.org...

Sometimes I leave because I get bored off saying the same thing over and over again. Sometimes I leave because I have better things to do.
Also, who says I left? Sticking around does not mean having to reply. I was still looking at what people had to say.

I also never claimed to know everything, but I will answer your questions as best as I can.

Okay so don't act like your opinion is gospel. By "addressing" my posts then leaving when I offer a rebuttal doesn't make you correct.

I do not act like what I say is "gospel". You also have yet to make a rebuttal that hasn't been shown to be illogical or wrong.

What naturalistic phenomena caused the Big Bang?

Depends on what you mean by Big Bang. If you mean Big Bang as start of the universe, then it is uncaused.

What evidence do you have for that assertion?

The universe appears to run off of the B-Theory of time. In the B-Theory of time, the universe is not caused.

If you mean Big Bang as the expansion of the universe, a large quantum fluctuation in a small bubble of spacetime could easily have caused it.

If the Big Bang was the beginning of spacetime itself, which is what the expansion of space-time suggests tracing the expansion of the zero-point singularity in reverse, then space-time couldn't have existed to cause the Big Bang. Nothing causes itself into existence.

As I said, it depends on what you meant by the Big Bang. If gravity is explainable by quantum physics, spacetime can bubble in and out of existence. That means that a small bubble of spacetime can exist without a cause.

Why has no society in the history of mankind ever accepted infant rape as morally permissible?

The question of yours does not make any sense. Society does not deal in morality, it deals in ethics. A society cannot accept something as moral or immoral, it can have views of what is ethical and unethical.

Oh so that makes perfect sense now. Ethics are not derived from morality then, right?

Ethics are derived from morality, but ethics =/= morality. Therefore, saying the morality of a society is a nonsensical question unless you presuppose objective morality.

Why is there such inherent complex specificity and order in a universe governed by chance?

Define complex specificity in a way that is not self refuting.

It isn't. Specified complexity means that any given function is only useful as a possible outcome in a complex framework. To convey how the Giants won their last baseball game, a newspaper needs to convey very specific information using very specific arrangements of alphabetical letters. That's an example of specified-complexity.

Well, I guess it depends on which model of specified complexity is being talked about. Either way, this here is a good read about the subject:
http://goodmath.scientopia.org...

Do you think good and evil don't really exist?

Good and evil are subjective, yet there are acts that should and should not be taken within a society based off of the society's ethical standards.

How are ethics and morality not dependent on one another?

How is that question even relevant?
Each person has their own set of morality. What is moral to one might not be moral to another. What is immoral to one might not be immoral to another.
Similarly, good and evil are seen differently by different people. Some people see something as good, others might not. Some see something as evil, others may not.

The ethics of a society that you live in can have some impact on your own morality, but it does not define it.

Similarly, the ethics of a society are based around the majority view of if something is moral or not, immoral or not, good or not, evil or not, etc.

Do you think time is eternal?

No.

Ok, so did time start with the Big Bang?

Time did not begin, there was only a first moment in time.

Why does the formation of man from dirt defy the laws of thermodynamics?

There isn't even evidence that man came from dirt, so the question is irrelevant.

That doesn't make my point irrelevant. How did mankind evolve from lower life forms if the amount of energy available for bio-chemical structures is on a long-run decline?

Since when has the amount of energy available for bio-chemical structures been on decline? You realize that the laws of thermodynamics only apply to closed systems, right? The Earth is not a closed-system.

To be blunt I think it's quite arrogant to proclaim that you have all the right answers. I judge whether the answers are right or wrong based on logical coherency not appeal to presuppositional idealogy.

I never claimed to have the right answers, but you never even spend the time trying to refute the answers people give you. I only claimed that people have given you answers that you ignore. Ignore includes not refuting. If you cannot refute the points, then don't ask the questions again.

Patently false. Please look at my debates - including the one you left - to see that others are the ones that leave before addressing my questions.

When I see people leave, there are many reasons why it could be happening. When I do see some of the more active member s leave it is almost always caused from you ignoring their points, either by choosing to ignore the points or being unable to understand the points.

Looking at the one you said I left (when I only stopped responding, but still was watching), you did not grasp a lot of what Beastt was saying. Granted, he fails to specify some things that are important to specify, but so do you.

Just because you do not understand the answers people give does not mean no one addressed your questions.
After all, did you address Xenophanes (granted he didn't address you in the kindest manner)?
BTW, did you even address me? Post 93?
Did you address Double_R?

Also, do not confuse arguments in forums with debates. They are two different things.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2014 3:05:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
You: "Sorry, but these are all flawed arguments. You have brought them up many times, and they always get refuted. Instead of sounding like a broken record, refute the refutations."

Me: "The only thing brought up like a broken record is that my arguments have been refuted. Stick around and we'll see if that's true." Post #314

You: [left]
http://www.debate.org...

Sometimes I leave because I get bored off saying the same thing over and over again. Sometimes I leave because I have better things to do.
Also, who says I left? Sticking around does not mean having to reply. I was still looking at what people had to say.

Being the last person to respond and having the other person give no response despite viewing the topic doesn't mean that the person responding has been adequately addressed by the person that leaves.

I also never claimed to know everything, but I will answer your questions as best as I can.

Okay so don't act like your opinion is gospel. By "addressing" my posts then leaving when I offer a rebuttal doesn't make you correct.

I do not act like what I say is "gospel". You also have yet to make a rebuttal that hasn't been shown to be illogical or wrong.

Ok "****stick around and we'll see if that's true****".

What naturalistic phenomena caused the Big Bang?

Depends on what you mean by Big Bang. If you mean Big Bang as start of the universe, then it is uncaused.

What evidence do you have for that assertion?

The universe appears to run off of the B-Theory of time. In the B-Theory of time, the universe is not caused.

Even though all evidence shows that the Big Bang was the beginning of the physical universe?

If you mean Big Bang as the expansion of the universe, a large quantum fluctuation in a small bubble of spacetime could easily have caused it.

If the Big Bang was the beginning of spacetime itself, which is what the expansion of space-time suggests tracing the expansion of the zero-point singularity in reverse, then space-time couldn't have existed to cause the Big Bang. Nothing causes itself into existence.

As I said, it depends on what you meant by the Big Bang. If gravity is explainable by quantum physics, spacetime can bubble in and out of existence. That means that a small bubble of spacetime can exist without a cause.

Space time doesn't bubble in and out of existence. I need to see a source for that claim.

Why has no society in the history of mankind ever accepted infant rape as morally permissible?

The question of yours does not make any sense. Society does not deal in morality, it deals in ethics. A society cannot accept something as moral or immoral, it can have views of what is ethical and unethical.

Oh so that makes perfect sense now. Ethics are not derived from morality then, right?

Ethics are derived from morality, but ethics =/= morality. Therefore, saying the morality of a society is a nonsensical question unless you presuppose objective morality.

Simply, if ethics are derived from morality, then ethics of society are indicative of societal morality. Society is a collection of individuals. Is that correct or incorrect?

Why is there such inherent complex specificity and order in a universe governed by chance?

Define complex specificity in a way that is not self refuting.

It isn't. Specified complexity means that any given function is only useful as a possible outcome in a complex framework. To convey how the Giants won their last baseball game, a newspaper needs to convey very specific information using very specific arrangements of alphabetical letters. That's an example of specified-complexity.

Well, I guess it depends on which model of specified complexity is being talked about. Either way, this here is a good read about the subject:
http://goodmath.scientopia.org...

That's the same reasoning you've used to explain that it's self-refuting. It isn't and I've already explained why above.

Do you think good and evil don't really exist?

Good and evil are subjective, yet there are acts that should and should not be taken within a society based off of the society's ethical standards.

How are ethics and morality not dependent on one another?

How is that question even relevant?

Because by distinguishing ethics from morality you imply that they aren't derived from each other which you've admitted isn't the case. If every society considers infant rape to be unethical, why then is this evidently a subjective ethical or moral standard?

Each person has their own set of morality. What is moral to one might not be moral to another. What is immoral to one might not be immoral to another.
Similarly, good and evil are seen differently by different people. Some people see something as good, others might not. Some see something as evil, others may not.

Then why do all societies deem infant rape to be immoral or unethical?

The ethics of a society that you live in can have some impact on your own morality, but it does not define it.

Similarly, the ethics of a society are based around the majority view of if something is moral or not, immoral or not, good or not, evil or not, etc.

Do you think time is eternal?

No.

Ok, so did time start with the Big Bang?

Time did not begin, there was only a first moment in time.

So time never began even though it began?

Why does the formation of man from dirt defy the laws of thermodynamics?

There isn't even evidence that man came from dirt, so the question is irrelevant.

That doesn't make my point irrelevant. How did mankind evolve from lower life forms if the amount of energy available for bio-chemical structures is on a long-run decline?

Since when has the amount of energy available for bio-chemical structures been on decline? You realize that the laws of thermodynamics only apply to closed systems, right? The Earth is not a closed-system.

Explain how the second law of thermodynamics doesn't apply on earth. The only way a long run increase in energy could occur is if we had chloroplasts to continuously harness the sun's energy.

I never claimed to have the right answers, but you never even spend the time trying to refute the answers people give you. I only claimed that people have given you answers that you ignore. Ignore includes not refuting. If you cannot refute the points, then don't ask the questions again.

Patently false. Please look at my debates - including the one you left - to see that others are the ones that leave before addressing my questions.

When I see people leave, there are many reasons why it could be happening. When I do see some of the more active member s leave it is almost always caused from you ignoring their points, either by choosing to ignore the points or being unable to understand the points.

Looking at the one you said I left (when I only stopped responding, but still was watching), you did not grasp a lot of what Beastt was saying. Granted, he fails to specify some things that are important to specify, but so do you.

That's subjective and obviously a biased opinion.

Just because you do not understand the answers people give does not mean no one addressed your questions.

Same as above.

After all, did you address Xenophanes (granted he didn't address you in the kindest manner)?
BTW, did you even address me? Post 93?
Did you address Double_R?

Yes I did address you. You were the one that left! I've addressed others as well.

Also, do not confuse arguments in forums with debates. They are two di
intellectuallyprimitive
Posts: 1,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2014 4:33:20 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/13/2014 11:40:57 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 10/13/2014 10:59:36 AM, bulproof wrote:
WOW I missed that.

Beauty is objective?

Are you insane?

Beauty is as subjective as it gets.

Will anybody consider a shining diamond aesthetically uglier than a pile of poo? I think not sir.

A dung beetle.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2014 4:43:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/13/2014 4:33:20 PM, intellectuallyprimitive wrote:
At 10/13/2014 11:40:57 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 10/13/2014 10:59:36 AM, bulproof wrote:
WOW I missed that.

Beauty is objective?

Are you insane?

Beauty is as subjective as it gets.

Will anybody consider a shining diamond aesthetically uglier than a pile of poo? I think not sir.

A dung beetle.

A dung beetle being drawn to poop doesn't mean that it finds it beautiful. Unless the fact that we all poop means that we find it beautiful because we're all drawn to pooping.
peaceseeker
Posts: 90
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2014 5:33:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/13/2014 10:53:29 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
The question of "why does anything exist at all?" will be always fundamental even if we could prove that everything can arise naturally. What does "arise naturally" even mean? It means that we observe the methods that things use to build and self sustain. Okay, but why? And how did this come about? .... No explanation. Just the fact that varying degrees of anything exist, like beauty, for example, proves that there exists an objective standard to measure such beauty. It is clearly evident to anybody that observes nature that it is beautiful. Nobody looks at a sunset and thinks "gosh, that's ugly". The nature of being shows that a perfect mode of anything must necessarily exist to judge the nature of perfection in anything.

The Intelligent Designer proclaims

I am the Intelligent Designer;
I am what mankind has decided to call God.
I did not come from nowhere.
I play no magic tricks on man.
I did not create the earth by casting spells.
I had a humble beginning the same as man;
My beginning was at the dawn of spirituality.
My wisdom grows as more spirits unite
After the cessation of life after much physical strife.
Throughout time I have been named God,
Allah, Jehovah, The Great Spirit, and many more.
I do not judge man for his vanity or naivety
To be the one who claims to please me the most.
I am easy to please. I require very little.
I only want you to do what is best for mankind.
I will bless you and wish you well.
I will inspire your mind and you will
Accomplish the unfathomable.
I require no worship. I need nothing from man.
I am self-sufficient. I am spirit.
SNP1
Posts: 2,406
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2014 6:04:20 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/13/2014 3:05:15 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
The universe appears to run off of the B-Theory of time. In the B-Theory of time, the universe is not caused.

Even though all evidence shows that the Big Bang was the beginning of the physical universe?

You realize that we do not (currently) have the ability to know what happened at t=0, right? I suggest that you look at the different theories of time.

As I said, it depends on what you meant by the Big Bang. If gravity is explainable by quantum physics, spacetime can bubble in and out of existence. That means that a small bubble of spacetime can exist without a cause.

Space time doesn't bubble in and out of existence. I need to see a source for that claim.

I have given sources to you previously on this subject. You can look there or you can read the book, "A Universe from Nothing" by Lawrence Krauss.

Ethics are derived from morality, but ethics =/= morality. Therefore, saying the morality of a society is a nonsensical question unless you presuppose objective morality.

Simply, if ethics are derived from morality, then ethics of society are indicative of societal morality. Society is a collection of individuals. Is that correct or incorrect?

Of what the majority of that society views as what is moral/immoral, yes. But that does not mean "societal morality".

Morality exists on the INDIVIDUAL level, NOT a societal level.

Well, I guess it depends on which model of specified complexity is being talked about. Either way, this here is a good read about the subject:
http://goodmath.scientopia.org...

That's the same reasoning you've used to explain that it's self-refuting. It isn't and I've already explained why above.

Can you provide a link that explains how the universe fits your model of specified complexity? I want to see it from a good source.

How is that question even relevant?

Because by distinguishing ethics from morality you imply that they aren't derived from each other which you've admitted isn't the case. If every society considers infant rape to be unethical, why then is this evidently a subjective ethical or moral standard?

Even though morality is subjective, there are good reasons why some moral positions are common, some more common than others. This means that some positions that share the same ethical position in all societies that we can know the position on (we cannot know the ethical position of every society that has ever existed) are just positions that have good reasons for the position.

If you want me to elaborate more, I can.

Each person has their own set of morality. What is moral to one might not be moral to another. What is immoral to one might not be immoral to another.
Similarly, good and evil are seen differently by different people. Some people see something as good, others might not. Some see something as evil, others may not.

Then why do all societies deem infant rape to be immoral or unethical?

No society deems infant rape to be immoral, morality is on the individual level.
Societies do not deem something ethical or unethical, the position is decided by the majority view of the position by the individuals within the society.

Infant rape is something that you can expect to be seen as immoral by most people due to a number of reasons.

We have a biological want to ensure the survival of our species, and we, being a societal species, view societies/communities as the best way to ensure this.

In a small community, every life is important to keeping the community surviving. Infant rape can be physically harmful to the infant, and psychologically damaging. This can cause mass chaos within the community, and if unchecked can cause the community to collapse.

In a larger community, infant rape is detrimental, but not on the same scale. It can hurt parts of the community, but not the whole of it.

In all communities, one infant rape can be seen to lead to another, then to another, etc. If this happens, regardless of size of the community, then the community can suffer.

ANOTHER reason we can see infant rape being seen by the majority as wrong is EMPATHY. Humans, like many animals, evolved empathy in order to help ensure the survival of our species. It also lead to other forms of morality. We can all imagine being that infant, imagine the suffering, etc. This will lead a lot of people to taking the stance that it is wrong.

The above show why a majority of people would view infant rape as wrong, it does not address everyone though. It also would explain why we have yet to find a society that does not take the position that infant rape is unethical.

Time did not begin, there was only a first moment in time.

So time never began even though it began?

You really need to learn about B-Theory of time.
I will quote someone you probably look up to, William Lane Craig.
"From start to finish, the Kalam cosmological argument is predicated upon the A-Theory of time. On a B-Theory of time, the universe does not in fact come into being or become actual at the Big Bang; it just exists tenselessly as a four-dimensional space-time block that is finitely extended in the earlier than direction. If time is tenseless, then the universe never really comes into being, and, therefore, the quest for a cause of its coming into being is misconceived."

Since when has the amount of energy available for bio-chemical structures been on decline? You realize that the laws of thermodynamics only apply to closed systems, right? The Earth is not a closed-system.

Explain how the second law of thermodynamics doesn't apply on earth. The only way a long run increase in energy could occur is if we had chloroplasts to continuously harness the sun's energy.

Let me quote something you just said.
" if we had chloroplasts to continuously harness the sun's energy."

Now, do you know how plants work?
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2014 12:31:14 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
You realize that we do not (currently) have the ability to know what happened at t=0, right? I suggest that you look at the different theories of time.

I'm suggesting that there is no evidence that any physical thing pre-existed the singularity. Do we agree on that point? The expansion of space-time can be traced back to the singularity. If nothing physical pre-existed this singularity, it apparently had a metaphysical cause or it came from literally nothing. How would different theories on time explain how the Big Bang came about?

Space time doesn't bubble in and out of existence. I need to see a source for that claim.

I have given sources to you previously on this subject. You can look there or you can read the book, "A Universe from Nothing" by Lawrence Krauss.

The source you used in our debate? That only pertained to phenomena already occurring within space-time. Post it and I'll point it out again. When Krauss says "nothing" he equivocates absolute nothingness with empty space. Emerging from pre-existing space and "nothing" are not the same thing at all. We have every reason to believe that no space existed before the Big Bang given the uniformity of the expansion that traces back to the singularity.

Ethics are derived from morality, but ethics =/= morality. Therefore, saying the morality of a society is a nonsensical question unless you presuppose objective morality.

Simply, if ethics are derived from morality, then ethics of society are indicative of societal morality. Society is a collection of individuals. Is that correct or incorrect?

Of what the majority of that society views as what is moral/immoral, yes. But that does not mean "societal morality".

Morality exists on the INDIVIDUAL level, NOT a societal level.

So since a collection of individuals pass laws founded on their moral perceptions this isn't indicative of what humans perceive to be moral or immoral? It would make no sense to assume that. The reason why societies are a better example of whether individuals perceive objective morality or not is because they represent a larger sample size. Individuals who deviate and engage in objectively immoral behavior for selfish reasons are regulated by others within that society. That's why laws and different punishable behaviors within different societies are the best examples of whether or not people apprehend objective moral standards.

Well, I guess it depends on which model of specified complexity is being talked about. Either way, this here is a good read about the subject:
http://goodmath.scientopia.org...

That's the same reasoning you've used to explain that it's self-refuting. It isn't and I've already explained why above.

Can you provide a link that explains how the universe fits your model of specified complexity? I want to see it from a good source.

http://www.discovery.org...

How is that question even relevant?

Because by distinguishing ethics from morality you imply that they aren't derived from each other which you've admitted isn't the case. If every society considers infant rape to be unethical, why then is this evidently a subjective ethical or moral standard?

Even though morality is subjective, there are good reasons why some moral positions are common, some more common than others. This means that some positions that share the same ethical position in all societies that we can know the position on (we cannot know the ethical position of every society that has ever existed) are just positions that have good reasons for the position.

Do you mean that morality helps society better conform?

If you want me to elaborate more, I can.

Each person has their own set of morality. What is moral to one might not be moral to another. What is immoral to one might not be immoral to another.
Similarly, good and evil are seen differently by different people. Some people see something as good, others might not. Some see something as evil, others may not.

Then why do all societies deem infant rape to be immoral or unethical?

No society deems infant rape to be immoral, morality is on the individual level.
Societies do not deem something ethical or unethical, the position is decided by the majority view of the position by the individuals within the society.

We've established that society makes laws based on ethics and ethics are based on individual moral perception. Since societies are a collection of human individuals then what laws society passes reveal whether or not humans have objective moral standards. Can you name one society in the history of mankind that allowed infant rape? If not, is this evidently a subjective moral standard?

Infant rape is something that you can expect to be seen as immoral by most people due to a number of reasons.

We have a biological want to ensure the survival of our species, and we, being a societal species, view societies/communities as the best way to ensure this.

Survival can't be the reason for any moral behavior since survival isn't an objective purpose and morality only concerns purpose-driven behavior. Survival can only be an unintended tendency if we have a purposeless existence.

In a small community, every life is important to keeping the community surviving. Infant rape can be physically harmful to the infant, and psychologically damaging. This can cause mass chaos within the community, and if unchecked can cause the community to collapse.

We need to discuss survival as the foundation of morality. Do you think survival an objective purpose?

In a larger community, infant rape is detrimental, but not on the same scale. It can hurt parts of the community, but not the whole of it.

In all communities, one infant rape can be seen to lead to another, then to another, etc. If this happens, regardless of size of the community, then the community can suffer.

ANOTHER reason we can see infant rape being seen by the majority as wrong is EMPATHY. Humans, like many animals, evolved empathy in order to help ensure the survival of our species. It also lead to other forms of morality. We can all imagine being that infant, imagine the suffering, etc. This will lead a lot of people to taking the stance that it is wrong.

Empathy is knowing what another person will experience based on how we treat them. Some people use empathy for evil. Causing as much pain and suffering because they know it hurts and that's what they enjoy doing. So how can empathy be the basis for all moral decisions?


The above show why a majority of people would view infant rape as wrong, it does not address everyone though. It also would explain why we have yet to find a society that does not take the position that infant rape is unethical.

Time did not begin, there was only a first moment in time.

So time never began even though it began?

You really need to learn about B-Theory of time.
I will quote someone you probably look up to, William Lane Craig.
"From start to finish, the Kalam cosmological argument is predicated upon the A-Theory of time. On a B-Theory of time, the universe does not in fact come into being.... [char limit]

How did the Big Bang even occur if the B-theory is correct?


Explain how the second law of thermodynamics doesn't apply on earth. The only way a long run increase in energy could occur is if we had chloroplasts to continuously harness the sun's energy.

Yes chloroplasts are used to harness energy from the sun - increasing structure and order in plants via photosynthesis. So how are organisms able to evolve with upward-complexity biologically without this structure capable of harnessing this energy to circumvent the 2nd law?
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2014 12:33:12 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/13/2014 11:00:15 PM, bulproof wrote:
Which is more beautiful?
Michelangelo's David?
OR
da Vinci's Mona Lisa?

I already gave you an example. Having an example of two more subjective variations doesn't mean the other one evidencing objective standards of beauty is invalid.
bulproof
Posts: 25,295
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2014 1:46:42 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/14/2014 12:33:12 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 10/13/2014 11:00:15 PM, bulproof wrote:
Which is more beautiful?
Michelangelo's David?
OR
da Vinci's Mona Lisa?

I already gave you an example. Having an example of two more subjective variations doesn't mean the other one evidencing objective standards of beauty is invalid.
You didn't provide an objective standard of beauty.
In fact you can't, because beauty is completely subjective.

You are aware, I hope, that many of your fellow travelers (theists) consider Michelangelo's David to be pornographic?
Where is your objective standard for beauty now?
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2014 5:52:42 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
The question; "Why does anything exist at all?"

Is exactly as warranted and intelligent as the question; "Why does nothing exist at all?", in a universe of non-existence. Either way, one can look for an explanation.

It's a coin-toss.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2014 8:55:16 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/14/2014 5:52:42 AM, Beastt wrote:
The question; "Why does anything exist at all?"

Is exactly as warranted and intelligent as the question; "Why does nothing exist at all?", in a universe of non-existence. Either way, one can look for an explanation.

It's a coin-toss.

That's not true. The question of non-existence itself could never be pondered in a universe of non-existence.