which is best argument against creation (of universe)?

[Patrick Degan]

I'll talk with people on here that respect people. I'm through wasting my time trying to sow the seeds of understanding with those who prefer contention. This is a voluntary activity of leisure time that quite frankly, is not worth doing if people are just going to make it deliberately unpleasant for people. I don't enjoy these insulting arguments. It just turns my stomach and truly lowers my respect for those whose intelligence should hold them in better stead.

Just a little lesson for those who seem to think being smart is some kind of badge of honour. It's nothing but a tool in life. It doesn't make you any better than anyone else.

And the bottom line is that you can be the smartest person in the world, but that doesn't necessarily make you wise.

No, the bottom line is that those who base entire chains of argument on one massive Appeal to Ignorance Fallacy really don't have the privilege
to be lecturing anybody else on what constitutes intelligence or wisdom.

[Lord Zentei]

I'll talk with people on here that respect people. I'm through wasting my time trying to sow the seeds of understanding with those who prefer contention. This is a voluntary activity of leisure time that quite frankly, is not worth doing if people are just going to make it deliberately unpleasant for people. I don't enjoy these insulting arguments. It just turns my stomach and truly lowers my respect for those whose intelligence should hold them in better stead.

Just a little lesson for those who seem to think being smart is some kind of badge of honour. It's nothing but a tool in life. It doesn't make you any better than anyone else.

And the bottom line is that you can be the smartest person in the world, but that doesn't necessarily make you wise.

No, the bottom line is that those who base entire chains of argument on one massive Appeal to Ignorance Fallacy really don't have the privilege to be lecturing anybody else on what constitutes intelligence or wisdom.

Wow, I had actually missed that part. Let's see: AR2, AR4, DR4, IR1. That's in addition to the DR5 elsewhere.



Anyway, because I'm a bored insomniac:

I'll talk with people on here that respect people.

In case you were unaware of the fact, respect must be earned, it is not a right; at any rate not on a logic debate forum.

I'm through wasting my time trying to sow the seeds of understanding with those who prefer contention.

The purpose of this place is to debate; it's not a coffee shop where people come to make nice. "Prefer contention"? Mockery of Stupid People is in the forum banner. I cannot imagine that you have been here this long and not noticed.

This is a voluntary activity of leisure time that quite frankly, is not worth doing if people are just going to make it deliberately unpleasant for people.

It is worth doing as an intellectual exercise, and to arrive at sound conclusions. The unpleasantness is all your own fault for refusing to concede or provide a remotely sensible argument.

I don't enjoy these insulting arguments. It just turns my stomach and truly lowers my respect for those whose intelligence should hold them in better stead.

If your respect for people whom you interact with on a fucking debate forum is based on this, you have truly missed the point of this place.

Just a little lesson for those who seem to think being smart is some kind of badge of honour. It's nothing but a tool in life. It doesn't make you any better than anyone else.

Actually, it is a badge of honour, other things being equal. It certainly makes for greater competence in a debate; and in any case, here you seem to be acnowledging your lack of intelligence.

And the bottom line is that you can be the smartest person in the world, but that doesn't necessarily make you wise.

And you demonstrate that it is possible to be neither.

[Darth Wong]

Well no matter how I try to get my points understood, it's failing through either my poor choice of words or I'm simply being unfairly accused of motives that are not even remotely true. It's apparent to me that many people here project their own ideas of people's positions on them because of the biased interpretation of their arguments. Great case in point, the use of the word 'dogma'. I've already suggested I may have chosen a poor word for my concept, but is that discussed? Of course not! "HEY, he said this and he can't take it back. NAIL HIM TO THE CROSS".

Yet again you demonstrate that you have the intelligence of a squirrel. Do you honestly think that you chose the word "dogma" incorrectly? I have inspected the rest of your argument, and the word "dogma" is precisely how you are attempting to characterize the scientific method. It is quite clear that the only reason you think you chose the wrong word is because it might offend people, even though it is the only word that fits the rest of your argument. If you think your argument would be any less of a pile of shit if you avoided using the word "dogma", you're an even bigger fool than I thought.

[Justforfun000]

Yet again you demonstrate that you have the intelligence of a squirrel. Do you honestly think that you chose the word "dogma" incorrectly? I have inspected the rest of your argument, and the word "dogma" is precisely how you are attempting to characterize the scientific method. It is quite clear that the only reason you think you chose the wrong word is because it might offend people, even though it is the only word that fits the rest of your argument. If you think your argument would be any less of a pile of shit if you avoided using the word "dogma", you're an even bigger fool than I thought.

Actually because of the response I got back, I looked up dogma and was a little surprised to find out that it refers to an inflexible set of beliefs that is considered absolute and without question, the word is suitable to a religious belief. By that definition it IS the very opposite of science. So yes I did choose the wrong word. However I was actually trying to refer to Nitram's position and his seeming refusal to consider a first cause as a possibility, not truly science itself although I was misrepresenting it at the same time by using the word.

Well how can I say this then? How can I put forth a postulation of a potential force of oneness that is the essence of "life" as we know it, based on the opinion of orderliness as a reason to believe this makes sense? How can you just say that as a faith based belief and satisfy everyone here that it's a fair statement?
Since I can't seem to put it forth without interminable contestations against my choice of words, I'd like to hear how someone else would solve this dilemma.

No, the bottom line is that those who base entire chains of argument on one massive Appeal to Ignorance Fallacy really don't have the privilege to be lecturing anybody else on what constitutes intelligence or wisdom.

1) I was referring to behaviour and the overall wisdom of gleefully seeking dissension instead of harmony. He feels it's perfectly fine because of the nature of this board. I think when the other person is NOT hostile, immune to points, and is making an effort to communicate and understand the other, it's unnecessary and unwarranted. That's my opinion on his wisdom and I stand by it.

2) I'm challenging this accusation. What I am suggesting is NOT an Appeal to Ignorance fallacy.

An appeal to ignorance is an argument for or against a proposition on the basis of a lack of evidence against or for it.
My premise that laws of the universe existing as immutable and a demonstrable example of orderliness is a reason to hypothesize that they arise from a source that SETS such a thing. Why? Because the concept of randomness and chaos could easily be the state of the universe instead and would have a stronger argument towards existing in that form if there was no unifying, controlling, LAWFUL course of things.
Even the example much earlier in the thread about the water in the river tried to use the example of the course of the flow being the way it is without a need for a "guiding force", but that isn't going far enough. The argument isn't applicable to that minor manifestation of waters activity, you would go to the source of the argument again which is why is water even STAYING as water? Why doesn't it flip from water into freon and back again? Why does water flow down a stream in the FIRST placed instead of flying upwards for a half mile and then doing cartwheels? Because of the law of PHYSICS. It's the argument behind the laws that is the meat of this argument, not the trite activities simply arising from their manifestation within those laws.

So by me taking the laws of the universe that we know exist, and theorizing about their origination, this is NOT "arguing for a proposition on the basis of lack of evidence". In fact, it is the OPPOSITE because I am arguing for it based on the DEMONSTRATION of evidence. What's the evidence? Order. So that leaves my hypothesis as a rational possibility that is as yet unfalsifiable until we can prove the theory might be correct.

I'm going to work backwards bit by bit here...

[Justforfun000]

Lord Zentei wrote:

Wow, I had actually missed that part. Let's see: AR2, AR4, DR4, IR1. That's in addition to the DR5 elsewhere.

You're stretching. I'm skirting some of these only in a contextual argument regarding appropriateness. I've seen others discuss the same things and call others out for unwarranted flaming, and even Mike has said some were too quick to jump on someone. I don't argue against the rules, I wasn't even complaining about the "profanity" per se, just the uncooperativeness in the debating style. In any case, I said as much as can be said about it and if they still disagree, then there isn't anything I can do about it. I'll still respond to posts with insults providing I feel they really want to discuss the issue and will give my posts a fair listen.
If it's just insults with no proper rebuttal against me, I won't.

The purpose of this place is to debate; it's not a coffee shop where people come to make nice. "Prefer contention"? Mockery of Stupid People is in the forum banner. I cannot imagine that you have been here this long and not noticed.

As someone said earlier, "You can be delusional without being stupid". Is this a choice you make just when you want to be particularly contentious with someone? If you like the person they're just delusional, but if you like to flame them they now graduate to "stupid"? I see how you are.
Here genius: Stupidity is the quality or condition of being stupid, or lacking intelligence, as opposed to being merely ignorant or uneducated.
My posts regarding this issue may be flawed because of my misunderstanding of certain terms like dogma, and incomplete understanding of doctrines like Empiricism. I've been trying to find a way to correct that through these exchanges. So since I can quite clearly claim that I fit the "as opposed" definition above, I don't really deserve the mockery that the phrase refers to, now do I? Find another quote.

It is worth doing as an intellectual exercise, and to arrive at sound conclusions. The unpleasantness is all your own fault for refusing to concede or provide a remotely sensible argument.

Bullshit. Have you even been reading this thread? Concede WHAT? Again since you seem to have missed a few things. Let me repeat once again in case you missed it.

My premise that laws of the universe existing as immutable and a demonstrable example of orderliness is a reason to hypothesize that they arise from a source that SETS such a thing. Why? Because the concept of randomness and chaos could easily be the state of the universe instead and would have a stronger argument towards existing in that form if there was no unifying, controlling, LAWFUL course of things.

That's far more than a 'remotely' sensible argument, so exactly where do you see me needing a concession smartass?

And you demonstrate that it is possible to be neither.

See? Worthless blather. Not a rebuttal or even related to the argument. Just one upmanship again. Very WISE of you. My respect for you knows no bounds.

2. to snivel or complain in a peevish, self-pitying way: He is always whining about his problems.
5. a feeble, peevish complaint.

Nice definition. Too bad it doesn't apply to my behaviour. But I guess people see what they want to see.

If it is not empirical "yet" then it is not empirical. Yet, you are asking us to accept it as meaningful.

I never claimed it was empirical. Are you saying that something that is not currently empirical can NEVER be empirical?
"Meaningful" is a subjective term, and in this case it's valid. My premise has a meaningful reason for thinking it a hypothesis.

So: you claim that your "philosophy" need not be proven relevant in response to my point? Then it isn't relevent, fool. There is such a thing as burden of proof. Or did you think that appeals to ignorance should be accepted by default?

See prior post. It's NOT an Appeal to Ignorance, so your entire post is what is not 'relevant'.

You are a liar. You complained that I was strawmanning you when I said that your position demanded the discarding of empiricism,

Uh genius? Do you not recall what I said regarding the strawman accusation?

I apologize. I am confusing you with someone else.

So either YOU are the liar now, or you have a piss poor memory.

"and now you assert that your "philosophy" is not empirical "yet", and insinuate that it need not be proven relevant."

Relevant in what way? PROVEN in what way? See this is where again people like you are trying to attribute motivations and conclusions that I do not have and have NEVER DRAWN! If you can't understand the extremely simple premise I'm suggesting, that has no DEMAND in it to be proven to remain someone's hypothesis, then I don't know what else to tell you.

LadyTevar wrote:

*snickers* Just from what I've seen in this thread so far, Nitram's winning this little argument. It might help that despite his age, he's been married three years and has actual real-life experiences.

I wasn't aware you possessed psychic powers. Please give me a tip on the horses for next week since you seem to know so much about my apparent "lack" of real-life experiences.
The only thing he's winning is the last word because I can't stand his childish debating style. I don't care so much about the insults, but his non sequiturs and circular logic aren't even rebutting my actual points, so they aren't worth addressing.

Now... as Mother Superior of the Knights Astrum Clades, let me say this: You're an idiot, JustforFun. Shut up, give up, take your toys and go home.

Mind your business. If you want to graduate from the peanut gallery to a person with a point, then be my guest and post your own rebuttals. Oh and the opinion of Nitrams girlfriend doesn't impress me much in the first place. It's easy to suspect a little bias there.

[Darth Wong]

Yet again you demonstrate that you have the intelligence of a squirrel. Do you honestly think that you chose the word "dogma" incorrectly? I have inspected the rest of your argument, and the word "dogma" is precisely how you are attempting to characterize the scientific method. It is quite clear that the only reason you think you chose the wrong word is because it might offend people, even though it is the only word that fits the rest of your argument. If you think your argument would be any less of a pile of shit if you avoided using the word "dogma", you're an even bigger fool than I thought.

Actually because of the response I got back, I looked up dogma and was a little surprised to find out that it refers to an inflexible set of beliefs that is considered absolute and without question, the word is suitable to a religious belief. By that definition it IS the very opposite of science. So yes I did choose the wrong word.

Only if you AGREE that you were completely wrong and that the nonexistence of God is the only rational conclusion, dumbshit. Otherwise you are (and have been) arguing that the nonexistence of God is NOT the only rational conclusion, hence it is akin to a religious belief.

Once more, fucktard: this is NOT about your choice of words. It is about your choice of argument.

[Justforfun000]

Only if you AGREE that you were completely wrong and that the nonexistence of God is the only rational conclusion, dumbshit. Otherwise you are (and have been) arguing that the nonexistence of God is NOT the only rational conclusion, hence it is akin to a religious belief.

Two important things:

1) I only gave God as one 'choice', but have also suggested a non-sentient first cause "force", or nature if you will. Any concept that would reference what a deist would believe I guess might be the closest if it has to be a "God".

2) Can I not use the word "rational" in its looser form? As this definition states:

A logical argument is sometimes described as "rational" if it is logically valid. However, rationality is a much broader term than logic, as it includes "uncertain but sensible" arguments based on probability, expectation, personal experience and the like, whereas logic deals principally with provable facts and demonstrably valid relations between them.

See? I cannot make my hypothesis based on provable facts of course, but it could still be rational by the other definition couldn't it?

[Darth Wong]

1) I only gave God as one 'choice', but have also suggested a non-sentient first cause "force", or nature if you will. Any concept that would reference what a deist would believe I guess might be the closest if it has to be a "God".

Are you so fucking dense that you don't understand the subject of this thread? Read the opening post. It's about the stupid-ass religious notion that something must have "created" the universe. If you're saying that this entity was the universe, than you're saying it created itself, which makes no sense. If you're saying it was something outside the universe, then it's a textbook violation of logical parsimony. This has all been explained to you, but you're apparently thicker than cold porridge.

2) Can I not use the word "rational" in its looser form? As this definition states:

A logical argument is sometimes described as "rational" if it is logically valid. However, rationality is a much broader term than logic, as it includes "uncertain but sensible" arguments based on probability, expectation, personal experience and the like, whereas logic deals principally with provable facts and demonstrably valid relations between them.

See? I cannot make my hypothesis based on provable facts of course, but it could still be rational by the other definition couldn't it?

No. Your argument is sheer nonsense, akin to believing that Yoda is a real person. "Uncertain but sensible" conclusions drawn from observation and probability are rational, but you appear to think that "sensible" means "my personal intuition", and it fucking well does not.

[Justforfun000]

Are you so fucking dense that you don't understand the subject of this thread? Read the opening post. It's about the stupid-ass religious notion that something must have "created" the universe. If you're saying that this entity was the universe, than you're saying it created itself, which makes no sense. If you're saying it was something outside the universe, then it's a textbook violation of logical parsimony. This has all been explained to you, but you're apparently thicker than cold porridge.

But what if the entity always existed, but then created the universe? Why is that impossible?

No. Your argument is sheer nonsense, akin to believing that Yoda is a real person. "Uncertain but sensible" conclusions drawn from observation and probability are rational, but you appear to think that "sensible" means "my personal intuition", and it fucking well does not.

I didn't reference my personal intuition, I laid out a hypothesis on the nature of law and order and why that might suggest a force that compels those rules. It's a faith based idea. Maybe it's strictly illogical by definition, but I'm not convinced its provably irrational.

[Darth Wong]

Are you so fucking dense that you don't understand the subject of this thread? Read the opening post. It's about the stupid-ass religious notion that something must have "created" the universe. If you're saying that this entity was the universe, than you're saying it created itself, which makes no sense. If you're saying it was something outside the universe, then it's a textbook violation of logical parsimony. This has all been explained to you, but you're apparently thicker than cold porridge.

But what if the entity always existed, but then created the universe? Why is that impossible?

It doesn't have to be totally impossible in order to be a useless, stupid, irrational idea. Yoda is not totally impossible either, moron. People keep trying to make this point to you and you keep ignoring it.

No. Your argument is sheer nonsense, akin to believing that Yoda is a real person. "Uncertain but sensible" conclusions drawn from observation and probability are rational, but you appear to think that "sensible" means "my personal intuition", and it fucking well does not.

I didn't reference my personal intuition, I laid out a hypothesis on the nature of law and order and why that might suggest a force that compels those rules. It's a faith based idea. Maybe it's strictly illogical by definition, but I'm not convinced its provably irrational.

"Provably irrational"? You're a fucking moron. If it's not rational, then it's irrational. You seem to think that you can toss out any ridiculous made-up idea you want, and it's not irrational as long as people can't prove it's absolutely impossible.

I grow weary of your incredible wall of ignorance on this subject. If the best you can say about something is that it's not totally impossible, then it IS a useless irrational idea. That's why the Flying Spaghetti Monster argument was created. That's why I made a point of mentioning Yoda. And all of this is flying over your head because you appear to have the IQ of a chicken pot pie.

[Justforfun000]

It doesn't have to be totally impossible in order to be a useless, stupid, irrational idea. Yoda is not totally impossible either, moron. People keep trying to make this point to you and you keep ignoring it.

Well I don't think it's stupid or irrational. It might be useless since we can continue living without ever knowing, but I still think the idea has merit. So I guess that I have to call it a potential faith belief then and leave it at that.

"Provably irrational"? You're a fucking moron. If it's not rational, then it's irrational.

Well WHY is it not rational? Why is it more rational to say that order and law in the universe is pure fucking chance instead of an originating force? I don't see the rationality in that. It sounds absolutely STUPID to me.

[R. U. Serious]

It's hard to believe that my very simple, very vague proposal of a potential reason people could personally have a kernel of belief that there might be something equivalent to a creator based on the existence of law and order has been strawmanned into such unbelievable complexity with conclusions attributed to me I'm not professing. Maybe it's a fault of words I"m choosing.

It's not your words, like TithonusSyndrome said, it's who you were associating yourself with at the beginning which started to heat up the argument:

If I understand his argument correctly, and I think I do because I've encountered it before among the decrepit annals of post-highschool slackerdom,

Honestly, I am amazed that you've been registered here for almost 5 years and haven't seen the same "argument/position" shot down many times ferociously. You might as well have claimed, that you intensly studied evolution and come to the conclusion that the human eye is so complex it could not have evolved. The type of reaction you would have received at the beginning would have been the same - certainly no "in the middle meeting"...

Now the fact that it escalated, is that you actually keep defending it over and over. If you really wanted to only point out that your "idea" can not proven wrong, and therefore considered "plausible" - you should have cut the whole verbose explanations (everybody is familiar with the weak rationalisations for the position anyway), and you should have explicitly put it on the same level as the possibility that two turtles created the universe, or that there's a giant, invisible muscular dude that's holding the earth in place, while everything rotates around it. I think that would have saved you the long arguments.

If on the other hand you really have trouble putting these in the same category, maybe Sagan's Dragon will help you understand:
http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/Dragon.htm

But it is more intellectually honest and also potentially possible in comparison, no? I mean we can easily disprove MANY major claims arising from Judaism, Islam and Christianity.

It depends on the type of believer. Many have enough rationalizations and "interpretations" that they get int the same "unprovable" "faith-only" scenery you're wandering about now. Like "all religions are inspired by the same cosmic force that you describe as the first cause". I mean, just read some theology-texts, and it becomes blatantly obvious that's what many are doing. When Theologians talk about the compatibility of faith and "reason", that's the type of arguments they engage in: Make all sorts of unprovable and unfalsiable claims which require "some force", then make the "leap of faith" that this really can only be Christianity because if you reaad X and Y and Z of Christianity metaphorically it is a reflection of the properties of those before mentioned claims.

Here genius: Stupidity is the quality or condition of being stupid, or lacking intelligence, as opposed to being merely ignorant or uneducated.

And if somene calls you an assturd, will you dig out the chemical and physical composition of the human body to show that you don't really deserve the label "assturd"? Get over it, people are blowing off steam, because they feel you are acting dense.

I never claimed it was empirical. Are you saying that something that is not currently empirical can NEVER be empirical?

"Yeah, and if Jesus comes back for the Apocalype he'll become pretty empirical, too. Maybe the current orderliness of the universe is only to test the strength of beliefs. Just because he's not empirical now, desn't mean he culd become empirical in the future. You can't disprove Jesus will not become empirical. I am not saying this is an empirical hypothesis, but you can't deny that there is a hint of plausibility, because it can not be proven to be wrong."


Here's my 3 tep action plan for you to recover:

* Stop _all_ discussion about "culture" of the board, about insults, your feelings, other people's attitudes etc. Even if you were right, it would only make your situation worse.

* Take a break for 3 days, and rethink the whole point you are arguing, especially the question whether there is any reasonable point in defending it, or arguing over the very minor differences between what some people assumed you were saying and what you tried to say.

* Post a concession which demonstrates that the "plausibility" of our fist cause argument is on par with other unfalsiable supernatural claims, give examples to satisfy the mob. You can't do that, or do not want to because you still think it's wrong, refrain from posting anything at all in this thread.

(Note, these are only personal suggestions on how I think you could salvage the situation. By all means, don't think I am telling you what you should to do, feel free to dig yourself in deeper.)

[Justforfun000]

Here's my 3 tep action plan for you to recover:

* Stop _all_ discussion about "culture" of the board, about insults, your feelings, other people's attitudes etc. Even if you were right, it would only make your situation worse.

* Take a break for 3 days, and rethink the whole point you are arguing, especially the question whether there is any reasonable point in defending it, or arguing over the very minor differences between what some people assumed you were saying and what you tried to say.

* Post a concession which demonstrates that the "plausibility" of our fist cause argument is on par with other unfalsiable supernatural claims, give examples to satisfy the mob. You can't do that, or do not want to because you still think it's wrong, refrain from posting anything at all in this thread.

(Note, these are only personal suggestions on how I think you could salvage the situation. By all means, don't think I am telling you what you should to do, feel free to dig yourself in deeper.)

I appreciate your suggestions. You've been mountains clearer to me in one post than 30 others. Probably because you were making an effort to reach me in understanding. It's exactly what I was referring to as friendly debate. It tends to bear more fruit.

I'll step away and return after a period of study and see where I can go from here.

[Darth Wong]

It doesn't have to be totally impossible in order to be a useless, stupid, irrational idea. Yoda is not totally impossible either, moron. People keep trying to make this point to you and you keep ignoring it.

Well I don't think it's stupid or irrational. It might be useless since we can continue living without ever knowing, but I still think the idea has merit. So I guess that I have to call it a potential faith belief then and leave it at that.

What "merit" does this idea have, moron? You keep saying it's rational, or it has merit, but you cannot show that it is rational, nor can you explain its merits.

"Provably irrational"? You're a fucking moron. If it's not rational, then it's irrational.

Well WHY is it not rational?

Because it DOES NOT FOLLOW from anything, moron. Do you honestly not understand what logic is?

Why is it more rational to say that order and law in the universe is pure fucking chance instead of an originating force?

Because an external cause is NOT NECESSARY. It fails to explain ANYTHING.I challenge you to find ONE solitary thing about the universe which can be explained by postulating this vague undefined "originating force", you stupid asshole.

I don't see the rationality in that. It sounds absolutely STUPID to me.

Ah, so when someone else says your argument is stupid, even though he can explain why, that's bad. But you can do it, even though you can't explain why it's stupid in any way other than to appeal to your personal intuition. Wonderful. Yet again you demonstrate that you're a fucking moron.

I appreciate your suggestions. You've been mountains clearer to me in one post than 30 others. Probably because you were making an effort to reach me in understanding. It's exactly what I was referring to as friendly debate. It tends to bear more fruit.

If you dislike the rough-and-tumble nature of this board, or our refusal to play Miss Manners when confronted by stubborn idiocy such as yours, a long vacation can be arranged. I've had just about enough of your constant whining that people won't treat you the way a kindly teacher treats the dumbest kid in the class. I'm not your mother, and I have no obligation to make you feel good, or to nursemaid you in your quest to achieve personal enlightenment. Around here, you're supposed to HOLD UP YOUR END OF A DEBATE, not expect people to lovingly guide you through your learning process.

[Lord Zentei]

Wow, I had actually missed that part. Let's see: AR2, AR4, DR4, IR1. That's in addition to the DR5 elsewhere.

You're stretching. I'm skirting some of these only in a contextual argument regarding appropriateness. I've seen others discuss the same things and call others out for unwarranted flaming, and even Mike has said some were too quick to jump on someone. I don't argue against the rules, I wasn't even complaining about the "profanity" per se, just the uncooperativeness in the debating style. In any case, I said as much as can be said about it and if they still disagree, then there isn't anything I can do about it. I'll still respond to posts with insults providing I feel they really want to discuss the issue and will give my posts a fair listen.
If it's just insults with no proper rebuttal against me, I won't.

Only we have been providing a proper rebuttal against you, and consistently so, you complete idiot. And you have no basis whining about "debating style" in any case.

The purpose of this place is to debate; it's not a coffee shop where people come to make nice. "Prefer contention"? Mockery of Stupid People is in the forum banner. I cannot imagine that you have been here this long and not noticed.

As someone said earlier, "You can be delusional without being stupid". Is this a choice you make just when you want to be particularly contentious with someone? If you like the person they're just delusional, but if you like to flame them they now graduate to "stupid"? I see how you are.
Here genius: Stupidity is the quality or condition of being stupid, or lacking intelligence, as opposed to being merely ignorant or uneducated.

And seeing your severe lack of learning ability (since you have failed to grasp what is being said here), I conclude that you are indeed stupid, as have others in this thread. But you seem at least to be acnowledging that you are deluded. Well, well.

My posts regarding this issue may be flawed because of my misunderstanding of certain terms like dogma, and incomplete understanding of doctrines like Empiricism. I've been trying to find a way to correct that through these exchanges. So since I can quite clearly claim that I fit the "as opposed" definition above, I don't really deserve the mockery that the phrase refers to, now do I? Find another quote.

Yes, you do indeed deserve mockery. Here's a hint retard: if you presume to drag a thread on for as long as you have try at least to have some iota of understanding about what you are posting. Better people than you have been flamed for far less, so don't get all pissy about the treatment you have received here.

It is worth doing as an intellectual exercise, and to arrive at sound conclusions. The unpleasantness is all your own fault for refusing to concede or provide a remotely sensible argument.

Bullshit. Have you even been reading this thread? Concede WHAT? Again since you seem to have missed a few things. Let me repeat once again in case you missed it.

Concede that your position is untenable, you idiot.

My premise that laws of the universe existing as immutable and a demonstrable example of orderliness is a reason to hypothesize that they arise from a source that SETS such a thing. Why? Because the concept of randomness and chaos could easily be the state of the universe instead and would have a stronger argument towards existing in that form if there was no unifying, controlling, LAWFUL course of things.

That's far more than a 'remotely' sensible argument, so exactly where do you see me needing a concession smartass?

In this particular instance, you need to concede that your wording is so vague so as it can mean anything your mind wants it to. Fucking useless. And what sets the "source" that sets the laws? Is it then not just another law itself? Fucking useless.

And you demonstrate that it is possible to be neither.

See? Worthless blather. Not a rebuttal or even related to the argument. Just one upmanship again. Very WISE of you. My respect for you knows no bounds.

And my respect for you is nonexistant. The point was sound, you sniveling hypocrite: you insinuated that people here were being unwise because they flamed you. And in case you were unaware of the fact, wisdom is not determined by posting style or lack of flames.

2. to snivel or complain in a peevish, self-pitying way: He is always whining about his problems.
5. a feeble, peevish complaint.

Nice definition. Too bad it doesn't apply to my behaviour. But I guess people see what they want to see.

It is precisely what you have been doing here. Petulantly whining about people's posting style when you got your shit ruined.

If it is not empirical "yet" then it is not empirical. Yet, you are asking us to accept it as meaningful.

I never claimed it was empirical. Are you saying that something that is not currently empirical can NEVER be empirical?
"Meaningful" is a subjective term, and in this case it's valid. My premise has a meaningful reason for thinking it a hypothesis.

It is not empirical. That it "might" be empirical has no meaning, anything "might" be empirical at some point. Moreover, you are postulating an originating "source" for the laws of nature (which are testable). However, this "source" cannot be itself empirical, because any empirical source for the known laws of nature would itself become a part thereof. Hence you have nothing more than the pseudogod of the gaps.

And you are appealing to your own opinion, how cute.

So: you claim that your "philosophy" need not be proven relevant in response to my point? Then it isn't relevent, fool. There is such a thing as burden of proof. Or did you think that appeals to ignorance should be accepted by default?

See prior post. It's NOT an Appeal to Ignorance, so your entire post is what is not 'relevant'.

If you can say this with a straight face, you really don't understand what this phrase means either.

You are a liar. You complained that I was strawmanning you when I said that your position demanded the discarding of empiricism,

Uh genius? Do you not recall what I said regarding the strawman accusation?

I apologize. I am confusing you with someone else.

So either YOU are the liar now, or you have a piss poor memory.

"and now you assert that your "philosophy" is not empirical "yet", and insinuate that it need not be proven relevant."

You really are a complete moron, as you prove yet again. I was referencing your position, not your accusation, namely that your position demanded the discarding of empiricism.

Relevant in what way? PROVEN in what way? See this is where again people like you are trying to attribute motivations and conclusions that I do not have and have NEVER DRAWN! If you can't understand the extremely simple premise I'm suggesting, that has no DEMAND in it to be proven to remain someone's hypothesis, then I don't know what else to tell you.

I suggest you look up parsimony. Again.

[Justforfun000]

Darth Wong wrote:

What "merit" does this idea have, moron? You keep saying it's rational, or it has merit, but you cannot show that it is rational, nor can you explain its merits.

The simplest way I could. Laws should arise from a lawmaker, otherwise there should be chaos and nothing in this world should make sense or be immutable. That is the basic argument that makes sense to me. Like I said way back at the beginning though, maybe there IS no reason for the way things are and they just are the way they are. I never swore up and down things had to have a maker to be explained, I said one could profess that one idea as a reason to justify their belief. If Nitram is a deist and he professes to believe this even though it is 'irrational', is this also employing personal intuition? If so, and that is the only way to present this belief, then ok. That's where my position would be then.

Because it DOES NOT FOLLOW from anything, moron. Do you honestly not understand what logic is?

Ok. I get it. I still thought that it was ok to justify it as rational because it still "followed" from the premise of laws are immutable forms of order and thus are reasonable to deduce as arising from something that SETS them as such.

Because an external cause is NOT NECESSARY. It fails to explain ANYTHING.I challenge you to find ONE solitary thing about the universe which can be explained by postulating this vague undefined "originating force", you stupid asshole.

Ok, so just to sum this up for the future in case I'm misunderstanding you even more than I was...if a premise or theory can't or doesn't explain anything, then it is automatically irrational? And a question, has anything ever considered irrational before by this logic ever been discovered to be thereafter true?

Around here, you're supposed to HOLD UP YOUR END OF A DEBATE, not expect people to lovingly guide you through your learning process.

I'm trying to do just that but if you're not completely familiar with the other sides point of view or what they are going to consider the limits of rational and irrational, you can only find out by experience. Would you rather people just not bother to debate if they aren't going to capitulate quickly without understanding? At least I'm honest enough to keep trying to modify my point to what is acceptable, and eventually (as of this point) conceding that my manner of argument is flawed.

So in any case, I get your point in general. It's fine to profess a belief in something that might be possible as long as you admit it is irrational if it doesn't explain anything or consequently can not be detected through empiricism. Is this correct?

[SirNitram]

If Nitram is a deist and he professes to believe this even though it is 'irrational', is this also employing personal intuition?

I don't beleive that, you worthless liar. I am totally aware that 'laws' of science do not come from a 'lawmaker'. I have never made that argument, ever. Not even in private discussions of my faith. So frankly, go play in a fucking nuclear bomb test.

My belief that there is a Creator is irrational, and it's nothing to do with needing to explain the arising of how the universe works. But I don't see a point in discussing religion and philosophy with you; you don't even know what Empiricism is.

[Surlethe]

I'm trying to make a point from MY understanding and it's not a goddamn issue that needs to dissolve into this immature squabbling. Contentious argument without cause does nothing to further the worlds harmonization, and going out of your way to attack those fellow members of generally like mind that are discussing all points fairly and not trolling, is hardly a great precedent to set for our world. If this was the way people tried to act with each other in diplomatic debates and negotiations, we would have wars without end. I'm offering an opinion that I stated MANY times is faith related. Yet everyone is determined to jump on me because THEY are insisting that for me to suggest it's plausible means I have to prove it's logical.

Hey, retard, if an existence proposition isn't logically consistent with the universe, it's not plausible. In fact, you personally said that you were trying to propose that the first cause argument was logical, and therefore a first cause could be plausible: "I'm more or less playing devil's advocate and trying to at least give the most plausible possiblity that a first cause as a force or being could be logically thrown in the mix." (from here).

I would accuse you of lying, but I suspect that I'd be wrong: you're probably too stupid to realize what you said or go back and check on it.

News flash. I don't. It's my personal example of a reason good enough for a nebulous faith of a creator.

You know what, fuckwit? There's NO reason good for faith, by its very definition! You're committing the grievous error of assuming that the existence of a "reason" suddenly good enough for you to believe a proposition makes that proposition logically plausible.

None of you can declare that WRONG, you can just suggest it's not falsifiable. And I'm sorry I didn't say that...oh wait...yes I did...Many times actually. But I guess that doesn't matter as it only helps exonerate my position and will get in the way of more insults.

If you've got a fucking problem with the board, then get the fuck out.

Mocking truly stupid people who refuse to acknowledge points, continue to insist things are true (not possible), without evidence and so forth is one thing. I understood the spirit of this place from the beginning.

And you honestly don't see how you fit that definition?

But to jump so heavily on people with excuses of malicious motivation like Nitram is claiming I'm trying to do sneakily, along with Surlethe who I'm surprised is falling for that foolish idea, is ridiculous. You can't read my mind and all I can do is say you're both WAY off. You just can't seem to see the forest for the trees and I suspect that's because of the priority placed on one-upmanship insulting instead of coming to an understanding.

Hey, you stupid little fuck, where have I fucking tried to "read your mind"?

Let's get something straight: if I've been rude to you, it's only because you have arrantly insulted my intelligence. I expected you, especially after the last time you blew up with this "wah wah wah why won't people meet me in the middle and treat me with respect?" bullshit, to have learned your fucking lesson; very obviously, you have not. Why the fuck should I give you any fucking slack when you, with your moronic arguments and cringingly immature attitude, have completely disabused me of any respect you had earned back from your previous concession?

[Justforfun000]

Only we have been providing a proper rebuttal against you, and consistently so, you complete idiot. And you have no basis whining about "debating style" in any case.

Sometimes. Other times have been useless potshots.

In this particular instance, you need to concede that your wording is so vague so as it can mean anything your mind wants it to. Fucking useless. And what sets the "source" that sets the laws? Is it then not just another law itself? Fucking useless.

Isn't this a little bit too far though? "anything your mind wants it to"? I'm being a lot more specific then that by simply suggesting an originating force being a source of the existence of laws.
In any case, I'm curious about your opinion. Do you have any theory as to why the universe is orderly or would you just be of the opinion that there simply is no why and it can't be explained because no explanation is necessary?

And my respect for you is nonexistant. The point was sound, you sniveling hypocrite: you insinuated that people here were being unwise because they flamed you. And in case you were unaware of the fact, wisdom is not determined by posting style or lack of flames.

It wasn't exactly what I was saying, I was thinking more in the general sense of turning people off that might learn from here but would dismiss the place due to the abrasive nature, even when they are inquisitively polite, yet in error. But hey, if the board would prefer to be a much more condensed place with thick skinned people of mainly like mind, so be it. That's what it will attract and keep. I thought maybe the dissemination of logic and sense would be desired since it is a public board on the internet, but I guess it is first and foremost a place for flaming stupidity. I'll just have to accept that.

[Darth Wong]

Laws should arise from a lawmaker, otherwise there should be chaos and nothing in this world should make sense or be immutable.

Bullshit. They can simply be intrinsic to the nature of the universe.

I never swore up and down things had to have a maker to be explained, I said one could profess that one idea as a reason to justify their belief.

You just DID swear that things have to have a maker, you idiot. And it's not enough to have a "reason" if it's an irrational one.

Because it DOES NOT FOLLOW from anything, moron. Do you honestly not understand what logic is?

Ok. I get it. I still thought that it was ok to justify it as rational because it still "followed" from the premise of laws are immutable forms of order and thus are reasonable to deduce as arising from something that SETS them as such.

To say that premise B follows from made-up premise A is just a shell game, fool.

Because an external cause is NOT NECESSARY. It fails to explain ANYTHING.I challenge you to find ONE solitary thing about the universe which can be explained by postulating this vague undefined "originating force", you stupid asshole.

Ok, so just to sum this up for the future in case I'm misunderstanding you even more than I was...if a premise or theory can't or doesn't explain anything, then it is automatically irrational?

Yes. That's the whole fucking point of Occam's Razor, dumbshit. That's what people have been trying to tell you for many pages now. Why is it so goddamned difficult for you to understand? Seriously, what kind of grades did you get in science when you were in school?

And a question, has anything ever considered irrational before by this logic ever been discovered to be thereafter true?

I can't think of anything; all scientific theories are concocted in order to explain something. Nobody makes up theories for no reason at all and then simply lucks into them being true. But if it ever did happen, it would be like the broken clock being right twice a day.

Around here, you're supposed to HOLD UP YOUR END OF A DEBATE, not expect people to lovingly guide you through your learning process.

I'm trying to do just that but if you're not completely familiar with the other sides point of view or what they are going to consider the limits of rational and irrational, you can only find out by experience.

The other side's point of view was painstakingly explained to you many times, fucktard. Your problem is that you are too arrogant to pay attention to it. Just look at the point you're finally recognizing about parsimony and how it's irrational to make up theories that don't explain anything; people have been pounding parsimony at you over and over and over with no recognition from you until now. If you get it now, despite my confrontational attitude, why didn't you get it before? The reason is that you weren't really paying attention. I literally had to shout it at you with giant bold-faced letters before you noticed it. You're too busy being offended that people aren't taking your argument seriously even though they've heard it VERBATIM dozens (or in my case, hundreds) of times before.

Would you rather people just not bother to debate if they aren't going to capitulate quickly without understanding?

I would rather that they debate. What you have been doing is not debating. What you have been doing is crossing your arms and saying "I don't get it and I don't like your attitude", like a petulant child.

[TithonusSyndrome]

Darth Wong wrote:

What "merit" does this idea have, moron? You keep saying it's rational, or it has merit, but you cannot show that it is rational, nor can you explain its merits.

The simplest way I could. Laws should arise from a lawmaker, otherwise there should be chaos and nothing in this world should make sense or be immutable. That is the basic argument that makes sense to me.

What the hell makes you think that the world isn't chaotic? The humdrum of daily life here on Terra Firma might seem faily "orderly" to you, but that's only due to certain useful biological traits having been emphasized to assign this quality to the world around you combined with the fact that this is one of the more mundane pockets of the cosmos. Your "laws come from a lawmaker" argument is anthropomorphically asinine in the extreme and makes about as much sense as Empedocles' theory that love and strife are the fundamental building blocks of the universe. There's a reason why emotional and legal studies aren't included in a cosmologist's education, and you would do well to review why that is so.

[Justforfun000]

Hey, retard, if an existence proposition isn't logically consistent with the universe, it's not plausible. In fact, you personally said that you were trying to propose that the first cause argument was logical, and therefore a first cause could be plausible: "I'm more or less playing devil's advocate and trying to at least give the most plausible possiblity that a first cause as a force or being could be logically thrown in the mix." (from here).

Ok calm down. We've moved way past this point. I understand you can't use the word "logical" in reference to this.
It's been conceded.

Let's get something straight: if I've been rude to you, it's only because you have arrantly insulted my intelligence. I expected you, especially after the last time you blew up with this "wah wah wah why won't people meet me in the middle and treat me with respect?" bullshit, to have learned your fucking lesson; very obviously, you have not. Why the fuck should I give you any fucking slack when you, with your moronic arguments and cringingly immature attitude, have completely disabused me of any respect you had earned back from your previous concession

Insulting your intelligence is not intentional. If I'm wrong in my arguments, so be it. I'm not as well versed in many types of specifics when dealing with discussions of the limitations of faith, logic, irrationality and belief. Obviously I need to brush up a lot more on Empiricism and Parsimony for starters. But none of this justifies you or Nitram attributing motives to me I don't possess. If I'm truly way off in my arguements, it only insults MY intelligence, not yours.

Anyway, I've conceded what I believe was the major thrust against my argument. If I've STILL got it wrong, let me know.

I don't beleive that, you worthless liar.

Just to clarify, I meant that you believe in deism, NOT my premise I was arguing. You made it clear from the beginning you didn't agree with me. I was asking if the belief in deism is a personal intuition as well.

[Lord Zentei]

Only we have been providing a proper rebuttal against you, and consistently so, you complete idiot. And you have no basis whining about "debating style" in any case.

Sometimes. Other times have been useless potshots.

It seems that you are unaware of the board culture here. It is acceptable to flame, as long as you are providing arguments as well, and/or if the target is being blatantly stupid.

You have been here for what, four and a half years (almost since the board started) and you haven't figured this out yet? WTF?

In this particular instance, you need to concede that your wording is so vague so as it can mean anything your mind wants it to. Fucking useless. And what sets the "source" that sets the laws? Is it then not just another law itself? Fucking useless.

Isn't this a little bit too far though? "anything your mind wants it to"? I'm being a lot more specific then that by simply suggesting an originating force being a source of the existence of laws.

If you don't have any way of describing this "force" and showing that it indeed does inevitably lead to the laws we know, then you are just blowing hot air.

In any case, I'm curious about your opinion. Do you have any theory as to why the universe is orderly or would you just be of the opinion that there simply is no why and it can't be explained because no explanation is necessary?

If there is a reason for those laws of nature we know being the way they are, then that reason itself becomes a law, as I have already said. For instance, the tides follow patterns, once these patterns were explained by Newton, they had a "source", but that "source" was itself a (deeper) natural law. Thus it is meaningless to speak of a "source" for the laws of nature that lies outside the laws of nature.

And my respect for you is nonexistant. The point was sound, you sniveling hypocrite: you insinuated that people here were being unwise because they flamed you. And in case you were unaware of the fact, wisdom is not determined by posting style or lack of flames.

It wasn't exactly what I was saying, I was thinking more in the general sense of turning people off that might learn from here but would dismiss the place due to the abrasive nature, even when they are inquisitively polite, yet in error. But hey, if the board would prefer to be a much more condensed place with thick skinned people of mainly like mind, so be it. That's what it will attract and keep. I thought maybe the dissemination of logic and sense would be desired since it is a public board on the internet, but I guess it is first and foremost a place for flaming stupidity. I'll just have to accept that.

As I said. You have been here for four and a half years. You have no excuse whatsoever for your ignorance of the board culture, but it seems that in this time, you have learned nothing.

[Justforfun000]

The other side's point of view was painstakingly explained to you many times, fucktard. Your problem is that you are too arrogant to pay attention to it. Just look at the point you're finally recognizing about parsimony and how it's irrational to make up theories that don't explain anything; people have been pounding parsimony at you over and over and over with no recognition from you until now. If you get it now, despite my confrontational attitude, why didn't you get it before? The reason is that you weren't really paying attention. I literally had to shout it at you with giant bold-faced letters before you noticed it. You're too busy being offended that people aren't taking your argument seriously even though they've heard it VERBATIM dozens (or in my case, hundreds) of times before.

What I didn't understand was the allowability of faith combined with rationality. If I've got you now, it's impossible for there to be any rationality involved in faith. If that's the case, then it was impossible to make a logical argument for a "lawmaker". The only 'rationale' would be your own personal desire to believe it.
I thought that if you weren't actually claiming it to be true but only possible that it was a plausible idea providing it hadn't been already contradicted by science.

[Lord Zentei]

What I didn't understand was the allowability of faith combined with rationality. If I've got you now, it's impossible for there to be any rationality involved in faith. If that's the case, then it was impossible to make a logical argument for a "lawmaker". The only 'rationale' would be your own personal desire to believe it.
I thought that if you weren't actually claiming it to be true but only possible that it was a plausible idea providing it hadn't been already contradicted by science.

That is the "god of the gaps".

Again: look up "parsimony" (or "Occam's razor").