Total Posts:39|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

How 2 Make an Atheist....

belle
Posts: 4,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2010 6:37:10 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
's head explode!

this vid makes me lmao. especially since the atheist is balding and the theist has an exaggeratedly full head of hair.
evidently i only come to ddo to avoid doing homework...
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2010 6:44:34 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
So both parties have an impossible explanation for the cause of the universe?
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
tvellalott
Posts: 10,864
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2010 6:48:02 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/12/2010 6:37:10 PM, belle wrote:
's head explode!



this vid makes me lmao. especially since the atheist is balding and the theist has an exaggeratedly full head of hair.

Nice bit of religious propoganda.
The 'God' the hair guy is talking about is God in the Einsteinian sense of the word. I like it, but is isn't as clever as the 'out of context' stick figures.
"Caitlyn Jenner is an incredibly brave and stunningly beautiful woman."

Muh threads
Using mafia tactics in real-life: http://www.debate.org...
6 years of DDO: http://www.debate.org...
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2010 6:51:11 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/12/2010 6:48:02 PM, tvellalott wrote:
Nice bit of religious propoganda.
The 'God' the hair guy is talking about is God in the Einsteinian sense of the word. I like it, but is isn't as clever as the 'out of context' stick figures.

How so? He didn't define God as anything except the first cause. Einstein's God "reveals himself through the laws of nature" which sounds like somewhere in between Pantheism and Panentheism.

The guy in the video was talking about the Personal God of Theism (because it being a first cause creator).
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
belle
Posts: 4,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2010 6:52:45 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/12/2010 6:51:11 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 8/12/2010 6:48:02 PM, tvellalott wrote:
Nice bit of religious propoganda.
The 'God' the hair guy is talking about is God in the Einsteinian sense of the word. I like it, but is isn't as clever as the 'out of context' stick figures.

How so? He didn't define God as anything except the first cause. Einstein's God "reveals himself through the laws of nature" which sounds like somewhere in between Pantheism and Panentheism.

The guy in the video was talking about the Personal God of Theism (because it being a first cause creator).

"first cause" may as well be the god of deism. not sure how you get personal god from that....
evidently i only come to ddo to avoid doing homework...
tvellalott
Posts: 10,864
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2010 7:04:23 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/12/2010 6:51:11 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 8/12/2010 6:48:02 PM, tvellalott wrote:
Nice bit of religious propoganda.
The 'God' the hair guy is talking about is God in the Einsteinian sense of the word. I like it, but is isn't as clever as the 'out of context' stick figures.

How so? He didn't define God as anything except the first cause. Einstein's God "reveals himself through the laws of nature" which sounds like somewhere in between Pantheism and Panentheism.

The guy in the video was talking about the Personal God of Theism (because it being a first cause creator).

If you simply define God as the first cause, then that IS God in the Einsteinian sense of the word.
"Caitlyn Jenner is an incredibly brave and stunningly beautiful woman."

Muh threads
Using mafia tactics in real-life: http://www.debate.org...
6 years of DDO: http://www.debate.org...
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2010 7:12:53 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/12/2010 7:04:23 PM, tvellalott wrote:
At 8/12/2010 6:51:11 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
How so? He didn't define God as anything except the first cause. Einstein's God "reveals himself through the laws of nature" which sounds like somewhere in between Pantheism and Panentheism.

The guy in the video was talking about the Personal God of Theism (because it being a first cause creator).

If you simply define God as the first cause, then that IS God in the Einsteinian sense of the word.

False. Einstein believed in the Pantheist/Panentheist God which CANNOT be a first cause and therefore Einstein did NOT believe in a first cause.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2010 7:16:52 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/12/2010 6:52:45 PM, belle wrote:
"first cause" may as well be the god of deism. not sure how you get personal god from that....

Well, "personal" has two different connotations. It can refer to God as a person-like being as opposed an abstract principle or life force of the Universe. Or it can refer to a God who intervenes in human affairs as opposed to a God who abandons the Universe (like the Deist God).
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
tvellalott
Posts: 10,864
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2010 7:21:52 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/12/2010 7:12:53 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 8/12/2010 7:04:23 PM, tvellalott wrote:
At 8/12/2010 6:51:11 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
How so? He didn't define God as anything except the first cause. Einstein's God "reveals himself through the laws of nature" which sounds like somewhere in between Pantheism and Panentheism.

The guy in the video was talking about the Personal God of Theism (because it being a first cause creator).

If you simply define God as the first cause, then that IS God in the Einsteinian sense of the word.

False. Einstein believed in the Pantheist/Panentheist God which CANNOT be a first cause and therefore Einstein did NOT believe in a first cause.

I don't how one can be a Pantheist and not believe that 'God' is the first cause.
"Caitlyn Jenner is an incredibly brave and stunningly beautiful woman."

Muh threads
Using mafia tactics in real-life: http://www.debate.org...
6 years of DDO: http://www.debate.org...
belle
Posts: 4,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2010 7:23:18 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/12/2010 7:16:52 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 8/12/2010 6:52:45 PM, belle wrote:
"first cause" may as well be the god of deism. not sure how you get personal god from that....

Well, "personal" has two different connotations. It can refer to God as a person-like being as opposed an abstract principle or life force of the Universe. Or it can refer to a God who intervenes in human affairs as opposed to a God who abandons the Universe (like the Deist God).

again, a creator god is not required to intervene. all he has to do is set things in motion.
evidently i only come to ddo to avoid doing homework...
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2010 7:23:42 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/12/2010 7:21:52 PM, tvellalott wrote:
I don't how one can be a Pantheist and not believe that 'God' is the first cause.

For a Pantheist to believe in a first cause would make them believe that God caused itself.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,927
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2010 7:24:49 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/12/2010 7:21:52 PM, tvellalott wrote:
At 8/12/2010 7:12:53 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 8/12/2010 7:04:23 PM, tvellalott wrote:
At 8/12/2010 6:51:11 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
How so? He didn't define God as anything except the first cause. Einstein's God "reveals himself through the laws of nature" which sounds like somewhere in between Pantheism and Panentheism.

The guy in the video was talking about the Personal God of Theism (because it being a first cause creator).

If you simply define God as the first cause, then that IS God in the Einsteinian sense of the word.

False. Einstein believed in the Pantheist/Panentheist God which CANNOT be a first cause and therefore Einstein did NOT believe in a first cause.

I don't how one can be a Pantheist and not believe that 'God' is the first cause.

Probably because they believe God and the universe are identical and nothing can create itself. So if the universe had a cause and God is the universe then God is not the cause of the universe.

Which is probably why most pantheists believe in an eternal universe, methinks.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2010 7:34:22 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/12/2010 7:23:18 PM, belle wrote:
At 8/12/2010 7:16:52 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 8/12/2010 6:52:45 PM, belle wrote:
"first cause" may as well be the god of deism. not sure how you get personal god from that....

Well, "personal" has two different connotations. It can refer to God as a person-like being as opposed an abstract principle or life force of the Universe. Or it can refer to a God who intervenes in human affairs as opposed to a God who abandons the Universe (like the Deist God).

again, a creator god is not required to intervene. all he has to do is set things in motion.

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that a creator necessitates a person-like being whether it intervenes or not.

There's two major concepts of God:

The creator God, first cause, who may or may not intervene. ("Personal" as it is an actual being/deity)
and
God as an abstract principle, the absolute, ground of being. ("Impersonal" as it does not take the form of a being/deity)
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
tvellalott
Posts: 10,864
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2010 7:35:26 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/12/2010 7:23:42 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 8/12/2010 7:21:52 PM, tvellalott wrote:
I don't how one can be a Pantheist and not believe that 'God' is the first cause.

For a Pantheist to believe in a first cause would make them believe that God caused itself.

Don't Pantheists just use God as a metaphor. I know the definition is that "Pantheists consider God and the Universe the same thing".
I would go so far as to argue the Universe did cause itself. I can't prove this assertion, but it isn't completely ridiculous.
"Caitlyn Jenner is an incredibly brave and stunningly beautiful woman."

Muh threads
Using mafia tactics in real-life: http://www.debate.org...
6 years of DDO: http://www.debate.org...
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2010 7:38:17 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/12/2010 7:35:26 PM, tvellalott wrote:
Don't Pantheists just use God as a metaphor.

Yes.

I know the definition is that "Pantheists consider God and the Universe the same thing".
I would go so far as to argue the Universe did cause itself. I can't prove this assertion, but it isn't completely ridiculous.

First cause implies a creator separate from creation. If the universe created itself, that's not affirming a first cause agent.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
belle
Posts: 4,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2010 7:39:51 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/12/2010 7:34:22 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that a creator necessitates a person-like being whether it intervenes or not.

why does that follow?
evidently i only come to ddo to avoid doing homework...
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2010 7:40:00 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/12/2010 7:21:52 PM, tvellalott wrote:
At 8/12/2010 7:12:53 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 8/12/2010 7:04:23 PM, tvellalott wrote:
At 8/12/2010 6:51:11 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
How so? He didn't define God as anything except the first cause. Einstein's God "reveals himself through the laws of nature" which sounds like somewhere in between Pantheism and Panentheism.

The guy in the video was talking about the Personal God of Theism (because it being a first cause creator).

If you simply define God as the first cause, then that IS God in the Einsteinian sense of the word.

False. Einstein believed in the Pantheist/Panentheist God which CANNOT be a first cause and therefore Einstein did NOT believe in a first cause.

I don't how one can be a Pantheist and not believe that 'God' is the first cause.

Pantheism is the belief that God is the universe, or nature. If there is no universe, there is no God.
tvellalott
Posts: 10,864
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2010 7:40:01 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/12/2010 7:24:49 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 8/12/2010 7:21:52 PM, tvellalott wrote:
I don't how one can be a Pantheist and not believe that 'God' is the first cause.

Probably because they believe God and the universe are identical and nothing can create itself. So if the universe had a cause and God is the universe then God is not the cause of the universe.

Which is probably why most pantheists believe in an eternal universe, methinks.

I don't know any Pantheists, do we have any on the site?
Seriously, I'm trying to find a definition where it says "Pantheists believe nothing can create itself".
I found this though...
the doctrine or belief that God is the universe and its phenomena (taken or conceived of as a whole) or the doctrine that regards the universe as a manifestation of God
I'd say the Big Bang is one of the Universes phenomena.
"Caitlyn Jenner is an incredibly brave and stunningly beautiful woman."

Muh threads
Using mafia tactics in real-life: http://www.debate.org...
6 years of DDO: http://www.debate.org...
Clockwork
Posts: 349
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2010 7:40:40 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Awful. Two obvious conflicts with the whole video on my part:

- Time is infinite. It expands infinitely into the past and the future. The fact that this seems incomprehensible to us mortals does nothing to make it less true. The atomic and energetic interactions of the Big Bang, such as the proportions of dark and regular matter that collided and released energies intense enough to create atoms in the first place, literally defined our laws of physics. The Big Bang is the earliest point in time we can theorize about and the earliest point we can gather evidence about because the "rules" before our universe are unknown. The Big Bang was the beginning of the universe as we know it, not necessarily the beginning of time.

- Delving a little more into theoretical physics, time is the forth dimension. Just as I can move forward and backward in the third dimension or up and down in the 2nd, quantum physics has shown that time is not necessarily linear.
Felonial Disenfranchisement: http://www.debate.org...
Poverty v. Environmental Protection: http://www.debate.org...
On God and Free Will: http://www.debate.org...
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,927
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2010 7:42:03 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/12/2010 7:35:26 PM, tvellalott wrote:

I would go so far as to argue the Universe did cause itself. I can't prove this assertion, but it isn't completely ridiculous.

Yeah, it is actually. Sorry. It's logically incoherent.

Unless if you're talking something Quentin Smith's concept of self-causation (which I doubt you are) then yes it is completely ridiculous.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
tvellalott
Posts: 10,864
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2010 7:52:05 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/12/2010 7:42:03 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 8/12/2010 7:35:26 PM, tvellalott wrote:

I would go so far as to argue the Universe did cause itself. I can't prove this assertion, but it isn't completely ridiculous.

Yeah, it is actually. Sorry. It's logically incoherent.

Unless if you're talking something Quentin Smith's concept of self-causation (which I doubt you are) then yes it is completely ridiculous.

YOU'RE NOT SORRY!
"Caitlyn Jenner is an incredibly brave and stunningly beautiful woman."

Muh threads
Using mafia tactics in real-life: http://www.debate.org...
6 years of DDO: http://www.debate.org...
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2010 7:53:14 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/12/2010 7:39:51 PM, belle wrote:
At 8/12/2010 7:34:22 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that a creator necessitates a person-like being whether it intervenes or not.

why does that follow?

If it creates, it has a will.

And I would say that a first cause necessitates a creator because if the first cause was like a quantum fluctuation, then even that would be subject to a prior cause. So, therefore, a first cause would actually have to be a self-existent, eternal creator of some sort.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
belle
Posts: 4,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2010 7:54:54 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/12/2010 7:53:14 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 8/12/2010 7:39:51 PM, belle wrote:
At 8/12/2010 7:34:22 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that a creator necessitates a person-like being whether it intervenes or not.

why does that follow?

If it creates, it has a will.

And I would say that a first cause necessitates a creator because if the first cause was like a quantum fluctuation, then even that would be subject to a prior cause. So, therefore, a first cause would actually have to be a self-existent, eternal creator of some sort

from the fact that humans have wills it doesn't follow that everything with a will is similar to humans. thats a hasty generalization.
evidently i only come to ddo to avoid doing homework...
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2010 7:58:03 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/12/2010 7:54:54 PM, belle wrote:
At 8/12/2010 7:53:14 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
If it creates, it has a will.

And I would say that a first cause necessitates a creator because if the first cause was like a quantum fluctuation, then even that would be subject to a prior cause. So, therefore, a first cause would actually have to be a self-existent, eternal creator of some sort

from the fact that humans have wills it doesn't follow that everything with a will is similar to humans. thats a hasty generalization.

I didn't say similar to humans, but rather taking the form of a "being" as opposed to some abstract principle or field that emanates through existence.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
belle
Posts: 4,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2010 7:59:20 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/12/2010 7:58:03 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 8/12/2010 7:54:54 PM, belle wrote:
At 8/12/2010 7:53:14 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
If it creates, it has a will.

And I would say that a first cause necessitates a creator because if the first cause was like a quantum fluctuation, then even that would be subject to a prior cause. So, therefore, a first cause would actually have to be a self-existent, eternal creator of some sort

from the fact that humans have wills it doesn't follow that everything with a will is similar to humans. thats a hasty generalization.

I didn't say similar to humans, but rather taking the form of a "being" as opposed to some abstract principle or field that emanates through existence.

so anything that isn't identical with the universe, is, according to you, a personal god?
evidently i only come to ddo to avoid doing homework...
Yvette
Posts: 859
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2010 8:04:18 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Ah, arguing with straw men. Always makes the strawmanner look like a real tool.
In the middle of moving to Washington. 8D

"If God does not exist, then chocolate causing cancer is only true for the society that has evidence for that." --GodSands
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,927
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2010 8:05:33 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/12/2010 7:52:05 PM, tvellalott wrote:
At 8/12/2010 7:42:03 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 8/12/2010 7:35:26 PM, tvellalott wrote:

I would go so far as to argue the Universe did cause itself. I can't prove this assertion, but it isn't completely ridiculous.

Yeah, it is actually. Sorry. It's logically incoherent.

Unless if you're talking something Quentin Smith's concept of self-causation (which I doubt you are) then yes it is completely ridiculous.

YOU'RE NOT SORRY!

Lol, okay, I'm not. But think about it - for something to cause itself it'd have to exist before it existed in order to cause itself to exist....
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2010 8:08:25 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/12/2010 7:59:20 PM, belle wrote:
At 8/12/2010 7:58:03 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
I didn't say similar to humans, but rather taking the form of a "being" as opposed to some abstract principle or field that emanates through existence.

so anything that isn't identical with the universe, is, according to you, a personal god?

Notice the distinct difference between the two bolded parts. "Abstract principle or field that emanates through existence" =/= "identical with the universe."

Perhaps you should look into the modern theological concept of "the ground of being."

"The attempt of the 20th-century theologian Paul Tillich to reduce the Christian idea of God to the impersonal concept of "the Ground of Being."" -- http://www.britannica.com...

Notice here that the "ground of being" is defined as impersonal.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
belle
Posts: 4,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2010 8:10:59 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/12/2010 8:08:25 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 8/12/2010 7:59:20 PM, belle wrote:
At 8/12/2010 7:58:03 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
I didn't say similar to humans, but rather taking the form of a "being" as opposed to some abstract principle or field that emanates through existence.

so anything that isn't identical with the universe, is, according to you, a personal god?

Notice the distinct difference between the two bolded parts. "Abstract principle or field that emanates through existence" =/= "identical with the universe."

Perhaps you should look into the modern theological concept of "the ground of being."

"The attempt of the 20th-century theologian Paul Tillich to reduce the Christian idea of God to the impersonal concept of "the Ground of Being."" -- http://www.britannica.com...

Notice here that the "ground of being" is defined as impersonal.

and "ground of being" is differentiated from "creator" how?
evidently i only come to ddo to avoid doing homework...