--In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <fleetwood_macncheese@...> wrote : You continue to avoid jr's question, due to weak reasoning. Obviously none of us were around even a hundred years ago. Nonetheless, your argument that you don't know cause you weren't there (as time and space were getting their act together), is not a very good one.
M: That was not my point at all. F:Using this weak logic, one could then claim, that because we are not yet familiar with the quantum mechanics involved, when a zygote is produced, that the creation of a human being, is also random. One could always hide behind the limitations of science, and claim thus and such, is meaningless, and has no inherent cause to exist, simply because science has not anointed it with some sort of temporary explanation. M: Are you really so dim that you miss the point that it can be imagined otherwise, I don't need an example (although I did provide one physicists use) to show that this is an unwarranted assumption. F: So, no go, on the "I can't come up with an example, because I was not there". M: None of us are functioning at that level of creation so our intuition about what "must" be is worthless. Turns out quantum events begin with now cause. But the burden of proof is not on me to come up with an example of a contradiction, even though I did. The burden is on the guy pretending this is an irreducible irrefutable first principle. No one has made a case for that because there is no case for that. It is the kind of unfounded assertions that are your stock and trade. F: You simply do not have the consciousness at this time, to apprehend God, the experience of which is more the natural result of an unencumbered nervous system, than pie in the sky belief, or even faith. M: Your "unencumbered" nervous system is producing very cloudy thinking. All you have is bluff and bluster and that isn't working for you is it? You have demonstrated a very poor understanding of the conversation and don't know anything about syllogisms and how they are used in philosophy. Neither does John. You should just discuss amongst yourselves. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <curtisdeltablues@...> wrote : --In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <jr_esq@...> wrote : Xeno, I have asked Curtis about his support or evidence for disagreeing with the statements in the Kalam Cosmological Argument. M: My "evidence" was to point out that the assumption is not necessarily so, especially at the scales of the beginning of creation. You then asked me give an example of something that does not have a cause,which is absurd because I am only familiar with biological processes at my own sensory scale. I have no idea what the rules are before space and time are relevant. Some physicists who do think about these scales believe that quantum processes begin to exist but have no cause. So my point is that it is not necessarily so and cannot be used as a first irrefutable part of a syllogism stands as a refutation to the conclusion because of flawed premises. J: But he just gave me a lot of song and dance about his opinions without providing the evidence for his arguments. M: Right, you didn't understand my point so I was doing a "song and dance." Very intellectual of you. You don't even seem to understand the use of syllogisms or how they are constructed to preserve rater than generate truth. So why don't you just say you believe in God because you believe in God. It saves a lot of song and dance of flawed syllogisms. Can you give us a solid argument with evidence and support why the statements in the KCA have a flaw? Let's take the KCA which states: Everything that begins to exist has a cause; The universe began to exist; Therefore: The universe has a cause. Do you agree with statement 1 or not? If not, please give us your reasons for disagreeing. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <anartaxius@...> wrote : Logical arguments about ultimates always contain a flaw. You can reverse the form of the argument to support atheism and if you do not see the flaw, it will seem equally valid, that is, that atheism is true. Now there are some atheists who definitely believe there is no god and they can be as fanatical as a fundamentalist religionist. Probably they would have no sense of humour about their condition. But a real atheist simply lacks a particular kind of belief because that belief seems neither reasonable or likely. They basically just do not care. Barry is just testing memes to see what happens when they are activated. We all have memes which are basically little snippets of mental routines our minds use. We trade them with each other, but for the most part these mental stances are just our opinions about the world around us and we tend to be be rather uncritical as to how well they really represent what is real, while at the same time taking them as reality itself. Take the TMO memes. On FFL, meditators and former meditators all at one time believed certain things about experience were at least possible, for example, that if you practice TM, which is not a religion, you will find God. The TMO memes specify that we are in a state of ignorance, not knowing the nature of reality. But were we actually in the state of ignorance, we would not have the capability to correctly evaluate what we were told because we would be using delusional thinking to evaluate ideas such as transcendence, states of consciousness and so forth, so our following this system of thought about reality would essentially be an act of insanity, that is, mental illness. The system defines us as in some way incapacitated in knowing what is real, and then expects us to just jump in, and accept what the system says is real. A discussion of the Kalam argument: Cosmological Kalamity http://infidels.org/library/modern/dan_barker/kalamity.html Cosmological Kalamity http://infidels.org/library/modern/dan_barker/kalamity.html Home » Library » Modern » Dan Barker » Cosmological Kalamity Dan Barker "Daddy, if God made everything, who made God?" my daughter Kristi asked me, when she was five years old. View on infidels.org http://infidels.org/library/modern/dan_barker/kalamity.html Preview by Yahoo ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <jr_esq@...> wrote : Barry, Have you ever thought that atheism is also a belief-- and an unreasonable one at that? The Kalam Cosmological Argument should dispel any of your doubts.
