Atheists Call 9-11 Memorial Cross "Grossly Offensive"

[buckshot24]

These are just a matter of degree of wrongness. By not letting 3 people into the boat, the end result is the same as strangling them. The difference is in not actually doing it by your own hands.

If you do everything in your power to save those 3 people you're going to feel a lot differently than if you just hit them over the heads with your oars. You did nothing wrong to those 3 people. Unless you picked them because they were Democrats or something.

That said, if one goes out, finds a healthy cat, then simply strangles it, they are most likely psychopathic. That's a whole other issue, one in which Guilt likely has no bearing on what they feel.

Good point.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Not conceding just noting that you've got nothing to offer.

If you won't defend your premises, you have conceded your argument, whether you realize it and/or admit it.

 

[buckshot24]

If you won't defend your premises, you have conceded your argument, whether you realize it and/or admit it.

Against what? You saying no?

Oh nevermind. I didn't support them. Ok I got it.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

So even if something was actually true you wouldn't like the conclusion because it doesn't explain anything? lol

Yes, obviously. It's telling that (a) you don't understand why it's important, and (b) you think it's worth a "lol."

Time is a property of the universe.

No, I'm sorry. That is incorrect.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Against what? You saying no?

Oh nevermind. I didn't support them. Ok I got it.

Like I said, thanks for conceding.

 

[Paul98]

The point is you didn't cause yourself. Outside agents did. Clear?
The matter that is currently you existed. But I don't think your just a pile of hydrocarbons.
Where is a sentient creator in either of my premises?
This works at the quantum level as well.

So where is the cause and effect of in the quantum world, lets look at quantum fluctuation. How about quantum entanglement, if you have two particles separated we measure the particles get opposite results and predicted through quantum entanglement, did one cause the other to get it's results? If so which one caused the other to get the opposite?

What is me that isn't just particles, physics, chemistry, working in a certain way?

How does the workings of something IN spacetime aka time exists give you the reason to believe what happened outside of spacetime?

 

[Paul98]

So its a cop out?

But what's the difference with those who want to say something like a Multi-Verse is eternal? Something has to be eternal and from all observation it ain't the universe. If the universe isn't eternal then something else has to be.

If you want to talk about a created God then go talk to the Mormons but the Christian God is eternal.

But notice that my argument was that the universe had a cause not that it was God.

What does "eternal" even mean if spacetime doesn't exist?

 

[sandorski]

So its a cop out?

But what's the difference with those who want to say something like a Multi-Verse is eternal? Something has to be eternal and from all observation it ain't the universe. If the universe isn't eternal then something else has to be.

If you want to talk about a created God then go talk to the Mormons but the Christian God is eternal.

But notice that my argument was that the universe had a cause not that it was God.

No, it's not taking the argument seriously. When someone brings up an argument that has been known to be fallacious for centuries, those who know that fact are not keen to waste their time on it.

The Multi-verse is merely an attempt to address the idea of what may have caused the Big Bang.

If Time is a property specific to the Universe, Eternal things outside the Universe may make no sense. Eternal/Eternity is a function of Time. I agree though, something simply exists regardless of time or not.

Then what was it?

 

[buckshot24]

So where is the cause and effect of in the quantum world, lets look at quantum fluctuation. How about quantum entanglement, if you have two particles separated we measure the particles get opposite results and predicted through quantum entanglement, did one cause the other to get it's results? If so which one caused the other to get the opposite?

Were the results uncaused? Knowing the exact cause isn't needed to determine that there was a cause in the first place.

What is me that isn't just particles, physics, chemistry, working in a certain way?

Would you rather have your spouse/girl/boyfriend with you our the particles that she is made out of. Answer that and you've answered yourself.

How does the workings of something IN spacetime aka time exists give you the reason to believe what happened outside of spacetime?

Nothing really. The argument doesn't say anything about what the cause was/is or what it is doing or what it did.

 

[buckshot24]

Like I said, thanks for conceding.

No problem. Maybe later I'll do more with it later.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

No problem. Maybe later I'll do more with it later.

I won't hold my breath.

 

[Retro Rob]

I am not sure, but if this god were not a Myth, it would know what would convince me. Hell, if it were not a Myth, it could simply make me Believe.

Ok, since God (if he exists) isn't making himself known to the world in completely physical terms, he must not be real?

In fact, I don't think that would change much... not in this age of skepticism and doubting of everything.

 

[buckshot24]

No, it's not taking the argument seriously. When someone brings up an argument that has been known to be fallacious for centuries, those who know that fact are not keen to waste their time on it.

Yet you've wasted quite a few posts on it.

The Multi-verse is merely an attempt to address the idea of what may have caused the Big Bang.

So my fallacious argument is likely to be true after all. The universe needs a cause. Why postulate a multi verse otherwise.

If Time is a property specific to the Universe, Eternal things outside the Universe may make no sense. Eternal/Eternity is a function of Time. I agree though, something simply exists regardless of time or not.

Something doesn't need to have existed an infinite number of years to be considered eternal. Being eternal is not a function of time. Another definition of eternal is non-temporal.

 

[buckshot24]

I won't hold my breath.

I spend too much time on here anyway.😛

 

[buckshot24]

What does "eternal" even mean if spacetime doesn't exist?

Non-temporal

 

[Paul98]

Were the results uncaused? Knowing the exact cause isn't needed to determine that there was a cause in the first place.

Yes in a normal sense of the word cause. Or how about one where the effect can come before cause, or cause and effect is meaningless where both can say they are the cause or effect and both are equally real.

Would you rather have your spouse/girl/boyfriend with you our the particles that she is made out of. Answer that and you've answered yourself.

they are both the same, if you have the collection of particles that make them up along with the physics that put them together they are exactly the same. What are we made of that is special that isn't related to the particles, there placement, information, along with the physics and chemistry?

Nothing really. The argument doesn't say anything about what the cause was/is or what it is doing or what it did.

the base of the argument is flawed since you assume that things work the same way even without spacetime.

 

[Paul98]

Non-temporal

so not eternal?

 

[buckshot24]

Yes in a normal sense of the word cause.

But in a non normal sense of the word they are caused? Which way are they caused then.

they are both the same, if you have the collection of particles that make them up along with the physics that put them together they are exactly the same. What are we made of that is special that isn't related to the particles, there placement, information, along with the physics and chemistry?

Wow, we've got a real romantic here. haha

the base of the argument is flawed since you assume that things work the same way even without spacetime.

So anything goes if time doesn't exist?

 

[buckshot24]

so not eternal?

No, eternal. Timeless.

 

[Paul98]

But in a non normal sense of the word they are caused?

So you are just going to ignore this part and what I wrote, Does something coming from nothing for no reason have a cause other than that's simply what happens? How about the rest of what I wrote?

Wow, we've got a real romantic here. haha

I will ask again what is special that makes it not what I said?

So anything goes if time doesn't exist?

No, it means that the notion of time and how we see the universe around us is not going to be the same if spacetime doesn't exist. Our notions of how things work within spacetime can't be assumed if it doesn't exist.

 

[buckshot24]

So you are just going to ignore this part and what I wrote, Does something coming from nothing for no reason have a cause other than that's simply what happens? How about the rest of what I wrote?

The quantum vacuum isn't "nothing".

I will ask again what is special that makes it not what I said?

I don't care about this argument.

No, it means that the notion of time and how we see the universe around us is not going to be the same if spacetime doesn't exist. Our notions of how things work within spacetime can't be assumed if it doesn't exist.

Do you have any reason to suppose that a universe could cause itself simply because space time didn't exist? If not then this is irrelevant.

 

[sandorski]

Ok, since God (if he exists) isn't making himself known to the world in completely physical terms, he must not be real?

In fact, I don't think that would change much... not in this age of skepticism and doubting of everything.

1) It could be real. If it truly wants to show us its' love and desires for all of us to accept it, then it should reveal itself.

2) lol, like I said, it is fully capable of convincing or even making us believe. If the claims about it are accurate. You are simply trying to blame the non-Believer for why evidence does not exist.

 

[sandorski]

Yet you've wasted quite a few posts on it.
So my fallacious argument is likely to be true after all. The universe needs a cause. Why postulate a multi verse otherwise.
Something doesn't need to have existed an infinite number of years to be considered eternal. Being eternal is not a function of time. Another definition of eternal is non-temporal.

1) I have been responding to you, perhaps I should stop?
2) No one has said otherwise
3) "Eternal" itself is a function of Time. Without Time, it is a completely meaningless concept.

 

[Paul98]

The quantum vacuum isn't "nothing".

of course it isn't, but what is the cause?

I don't care about this argument.

sure you don't, since it shows that your assumptions are incorrect.

Do you have any reason to suppose that a universe could cause itself simply because space time didn't exist? If not then this is irrelevant.

I don't know what happened, now there is lots of speculation based on what we do know.

 

[buckshot24]

1) It could be real. If it truly wants to show us its' love and desires for all of us to accept it, then it should reveal itself.

Or...?

2) lol, like I said, it is fully capable of convincing or even making us believe. If the claims about it are accurate. You are simply trying to blame the non-Believer for why evidence does not exist.

The evidence exists you just don't like the evidence.