Dawkins is a hack. It's easy to see through him. It would be fine if he chose to be more humble and honest about himself for what he really is: An ethologist... and an armchair philosopher for the lay person. He shouldn't arrogantly challenge people to debates on the existence of something like God; God is too deep of an idea for an ethologist, like him, to articulate. Doctors of philosophy are better suited for the task of forming a worthwhile argument of God's existence, or non-existence.
Aww, ignorance must be bliss. Don't lets take Santa Claus away from you too. Denial and ignorance, you are simply walking around this planet with your hands over your eyes singing "lalala I'm not listening".
Whatever Dawkins's real reasons were for refusing to debate Craig, the fact remains that the latter is an apologist for genocide and doesn't deserve to be taken seriously.
"the latter is an apologist for genocide and doesn't deserve to be taken seriously"
It wasnt genocide (straw man) and his academic credentials outweigh those of Dawkins, who is not taken seriously in contemporary science due to the fact that he's never actually contributed anything to science which wasn't rejected (his Professorship is of writing books for lay people, not peer review).
Craig, however, has the most responses of any theistic philosopher in the academic journals.
@Birdieupon Okay, let's grant that Dawkins is a nobody compared to Craig for the sake of argument. Let's also grant that your definition of genocide is such that the massacre of Amalekite, Moabite, and Midianite children and infants doesn't count. It is still a massacre. And if there were any objective moral values, they couldn't possibly include on any moral philosophy the slaughter of innocent children. Again, Craig doesn't deserve to be taken seriously.
"Dawkins, who is not taken seriously in contemporary science due to the fact that he's never actually contributed anything to science which wasn't rejected"
His peer reviewed work in his own field (zoology) was rejected?
@nyscholartist Apologist for genocide? NO. It is known the atheistic rulers have done just as much atrocities in the past. Do you think Mao was a good leader? Or Stalin? What about Lenin or Mussolini? Or Castro?
@oscarmarin1995 Whether one wants to call it genocide or a brutal massacre, the fact that remains that the killing of innocent children, infants, and livestock for no other reason than that they happened to be living on the land that the Israelites wanted was pure evil. Yes, there are plenty of rulers who happened to be atheists who have committed atrocities. That doesn't excuse what God allegedly ordered the Israelites to do to the Amalekites. Two wrongs do not make a right.
@nyscholartist The Amalekites cup of iniquity had overflowed with death. They sacrificed their children, worshiped idols and who knows what else... Now I agree that "two wrongs don't make a right". However, God's judgement is always just. The Amalekites were welcomed by Israel to be immigrants and know YHWH. They were also warned. The Amalekites chose to keep doing evil. So evil was punished. Today is different though because Jesus came to die for the world.
@oscarmarin1995 Even if the Amalekites had become a wicked people, surely their children, infants, and livestock were not guilty of any sin or wrongdoing. How can it possibly right to say, "Well, they were evil, they sacrificed their own children, so God ordered that they be exterminated, including the children." If I think you are evil for sacrificing your children, that doesn't make it morally laudable for me to kill your children for you.
@oscarmarin1995 Reading these stories is gut-wrenching and it is very very difficult to see how any of this is "just" by human standards, let alone divine ones. "God's judgement is just" is a common theistic refrain and is little more than a variation of "We can't understand God's mysterious ways, God's knowledge far surpasses ours," which is uttered whenever sceptics point out how irrational and barbaric certain parts of the Bible are.
@oscarmarin1995 It becomes just one more way for the monotheisms to inoculate themselves against any kind of criticism; refer everything up to the unknowable, and you're good to go. Again, killing innocent children and infants is not just; they are not guilty of any evil, so they cannot be punished in any way. As for Christ being the only way to heaven, I disagree.
@oscarmarin1995 The doctrine of original sin is illogical. Why should I be held responsible for what two naked teenagers did in a garden in ancient Mesopotamia? That makes no moral sense whatever. If the doctrine of original sin is shown to be preposterous, then the blood sacrifice of Christ becomes superfluous. One of the absurdities of Christianity is that it simultaneous debases and exalts the human being.
@oscarmarin1995 On the one hand, we are all born in sin, we are born sick, and then commanded to get well; unless animals and men are sacrificed to God, He will never accept our good deeds. On the other hand, take heart, the entire universe was created with us in mind, we are made in God's image, we are the crown of His creation, and so on. These ideas and precepts are all very difficult to accept. I think the best hope a critically reflective Christian has lies in the work of Immanuel Kant
@oscarmarin1995 who argued for a kind of rational, moral faith purely within the boundaries of reason. So I think that it is possible to have a conception of God without necessarily subscribing to or practising any of the monotheisms.
@nyscholartist "Say to them, ‘As I live!’ declares the Lord God, ‘I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that the wicked turn from his way and live. Turn back, turn back from your evil ways! Why then will you die, O house of Israel?’" Ex 33.11
That was just my attempt to answer your belief on the Israelite Amalekite situation.
The reason is that Christ is the only way to heaven. His death paid for our sins.
@oscarmarin1995 I do think that Craig is a very smart man, having listened to more of his debates with atheists. He is the best defender of the traditional arguments for the existence of God out there. However, I think that his arguments for the inerrant truth of the Bible and of Christianity are not nearly as strong. If there is a loving, merciful God, and He knows our hearts, then He ought not to punish those
God Bless Richard Dawkins. I also said this to a packed crowd some weeks ago. If It was not for his book 'The God Delusion' I would have never discovered arguments for and against God. I subsequently chose something I never intended...I ended up becoming a Christian.
That's fine. Wordnetweb dott Princeton defines the Universe as everything that exists anywhere. And Wikipedia defines the Universe as the totality of everything that exists. And on both those definitions, it is logically impossible for the Universe to have a beginning of it's existence.
The Oxford people aren't here to give a Scientific or logical defense of their claim that the Universe had a beginning of it's existence. So it's just a bare assertion. Why are you EVADING?
@Dhorpatan Well if it's absolutely everything that exists anywhere, that would include God, so it would indeed be eternal on that definition, although that's not typically what is meant.
Funny how the Oxford people are fine to define a word when you LIKE it's definition, but not when they make a claim you dislike.
Well sure it would include God if he existed, but the existence of God is not a fact. Further, that would still and does mean the Universe is eternal. As the totality of everything that exists cannot come into being in total.
Why are you evading my question? I thought you Christians had the goods and the Atheists like Prof Dawkins ran and evaded? Hahahahah!
@Dhorpatan You don't have a question... on your definition of the universe, which is everything in existence ever, ever, ever, it would include God. So, the universe is eternal in that respect. As to the mechanics of everything in existence, ever, ever, ever, no one knows. So what then, are you asking? I can happily play to your definition, it makes little difference to me. :)
Yeah, but YOU DON'T define the Universe as everything that exists. That's why, if I remember correctly, I already said at the very least, the Universe is the natural realm, which includes all of space, time, matter, and energy.
So how did your made up God create the Universe? You sure are acting silly and evading pathetically.
@Dhorpatan If you spent less time criticising, oh sorry, criticizing me, and more time making a point it would be helpful. If you are saying the universe is only the natural realm going back to the singularity, then it has a beginning of existence. I really wish you would make up your mind... which one is it?
But of course that would make you fallacious since you are begging the question on their being a singularity, as there is no Science that proves a singularity to the Universe.
Last time and I have to move on. I tire of playing your childish evading games.
How did your made up God create the Universe, if the Universe is understood as the natural realm, and you are of the position he created it.
@Dhorpatan The current modern day cosmology clearly indicates a singularity. Not to mention an actual infinite series of events leads to several logical paradoxes, thus eliminating that as a rational belief.
Stop pretending I didn't answer your non-question, as I said, "As to the mechanics of everything in existence, ever, ever, ever, no one knows."
@Dhorpatan Because that's what modern day cosmology says. It indicates a singularity. To claim that science proves something so grandiose as the beginning of the universe, when we are stranded on a speck of dust lost amid a hostile universe of billions of stays, is quite arrogant. We don't know for sure, but current modern day cosmology indicates that this is the case of a universe such as ours which is expanding and cooling over time.
There is no Science that proves or indicates a singularity. Is that all you have? You can't give a Scientific or logical account of how your make believe God created the Universe, and all you have is Science you think INDICATES the Universe has a singularity. Meanwhile, I can explain logically and Scientifically how and why the Universe is eternal.
I should have known based on your channel you would be a waste of my time.
@Dhorpatan You keep raising my channel, and I'm just perplexed as to what that has to do with anything? Do you just skip over the parts where I say, "My channel is for personal use." as in, it's not for anyone other than me... personally?
In the same breath you condemn me for not knowing how God created the universe, and then say you can explain why it's eternal. Those two things aren't the same question. If the universe includes everything as per your definition, I agree it's eternal...?!
@Dhorpatan I don't know what you are saying here, it's not really relevant to anything I said or asked.
I asked:
A) Do you willfully ignore where I state my channel is just a personal channel for me, myself and I.
B) You are asking two different questions, 1) How did God create the universe != 2) Is the universe eternal?
Lastly I stated that on your definition of the universe, I agree it's eternal, and so I have no idea what your point is as there is nothing to contest...?!
A) Your channel is the only thing I have to evaluate you on. It's the only thing I have to go by, and judging by your channel, I should have known you would be a waste of my time.
B) No, you just have comprehension problems. I clearly asked three time or so how did your God create the Universe.
C) You have comprehension problems. I said "but you don't define the Universe as everything that exists".
@Dhorpatan A) No it isn't. I evaluated you on your arrogant, insulting behaviour, I've not looked and doubt I will, at your channel. I don't measure a person by their accomplishments or achievements, but by how they treat others.
B) I acknowledged you asked me how God created the universe, and I answered it twice. It's not the same questions as, "Is the universe eternal?" clearly.
C) On your definition of the universe I agree, on my definition the universe isn't eternal.
I'm not backing off. I'm still here. You're "apparently" a Christian. Christianity has nothing to back off from. The fact that Christianity is based on the Primacy of Mind/Consciousness, has already proven beyond doubt that Christianity is false.
Both the Quantum Vacuum and the macroscopic state are the Universe, since they both ENTAIL ENERGY, and are NATURAL.
It's just that the macroscopic state emerged from the Quantum vacuum 13.7 billion years ago. There is no equivocation, or logical inconsistency with this, and it is consistent with Science and reality.
That's not having it both ways. That's simply being consistent with Science and reality. Both are the Universe, just different states of it. Like Abiogenesis and Evolution are both biological, just different states or regimes of it, and ABIOGENESIS CAME FIRST.
"Then I have no idea why you wold offer to debate me, when I make such a bad case for your time"
Because I am a man of the people. I try not to see my self as better than others, and am not AN ELITIST like Thunderf00t, Veritas48, Dawahfilms, or ZOMgitscriss.
I take on all worthy challengers who I feel are sincere and intellectually capable. At least as much as patience and time allow.
I already challenged you on your claims that the Universe had a beginning. If I remember correctly, and you backed down.
If you want to deal with substance go ahead. So you can get your little Christian butt intellectually kicked, since logic and Science are on the side of Objectivism and Strong Atheism.
I already knew Equestions wouldn't respond because he's a coward and a joke. All Equestions is good for, at least on Youtube, is making snide comments on the videos of people who tell him what he wants to hear, and agree with his predetermined beliefs.
His main concern is making money, as it should be, and he drops in occasionally to YouTube to berate Evolution or some other Atheist, talk crap, and run away. He's not good for anything substantive or unbiased.
Ah yes... Dawkins: ultimate 'dilettante' of atheist apolgetics.
I don't care what you say. I don't care if you've shaken his hand, or created some contrived video, or read the books some people think Dawkins wrote...
If there is a Dawkins, why hasn't he shown himself to me?
Dhorpatan, if you need to post 13 comments to say what you need to say, please don't be surprised if you are just ignored. Try making your point without writing an essay, and then see if people wish to engage with you, otherwise you are only wasting your time, no one elses.
I didn't write that seeking engagement. I wrote that because it needed to be said, and I felt the need to express that. I required 13 posts because there's a character limit.
I don't need your whiny, self righteous malarkey trying to tell me what to do. As if your whiny, persnickety, fussy comment wasn't a waste of time.
@Dhorpatan What I was pointing out, is that upon seeing (Part 13) I just stopped reading. That isn't to say I read parts 1-12, and lost it at 13, I just thought if you needed 13 parts due to the character limit to say something, then this isn't the place to say it. That's why there is a character limit, it's not there just to make your life difficult, it's there to stop people posting essays - those who circumvent it, are just ignored.
But that's the thing. You are(as usual), being a self righteous little prick. Because no one told you to read the posts. Do they look like they were directed at you?
And the character limit is there to stop people posting essays. Where did you get that from? Is that written on Google's blog or website or something? Or did you just make that up of your own beliefs, and pass if off as if it's the truth? LOL!
@Dhorpatan Why do you think there is a character limit? It's a *comments* section, not an *essay* section.
You seem very angry when all I was doing was pointing out why it's likely not in your best interest to post essay-length treatise on someone's video, as A) No one is going to read them, and B) They will be buried by other comments momentarily. But you keep ignoring good advice, and let me know how that works out for - hopefully in less than 13 separate replies...
Yep, and those were comments. Just happened to be 13 of them. Who's the judge of what is an essay and what is not? Some clown named DigitalDecadence?
What is an essay by definition? Oxford Dictionary defines essay as : a short piece of writing on a particular subject. That doesn't seem to work at all for you. What is short is subjective. Your three posts so far on this subject could then be considered an ESSAY.
@Dhorpatan If you wish your conversation to be private, use PMs, otherwise anyone can/will reply. If you wish to have a little temper tantrum like a child, you will probably also be ignored. I'm just trying to help you, you obviously wish to engage with people in discussion, but your belligerent attitude prevents any real discussion from happening as all you achieve is showing yourself to be an arrogant bigot. I look forward to reading your exchange with Equestions, if he ever replies that is.
No, Equestions won't be replying almost certainty, because he's a coward and probably a bigot(I have no proof of that though). You're not helping me out. You are just being a self righteous jerk.
You probably are deluded into thinking you are helping me out because you are arrogant, self righteous, and thus convinced in the correctness of your opinion. Notice you could have let this be at peace, but you started it up again after over 23 hours. Cause you're a jerk.
@Dhorpatan You state opinion like fact. I don't really see how I'm being self-righteous, I was merely pointing out that from experience the more people write in comments, spanning several comments, the less inclined posters are to reply. You spend time and effort writing your thoughts down, and you get nothing for it. That seems like a bad deal, so I was trying to show you this, but if you wish to continue fighting that paper dragon, by all means. I only replied now, as I have life. :)
You're being self-righteous because you are preachy and goody-goody. You talk down to others as if you are holier than thou and can tell them how they should and should not act.
I told you from the beginning that I did not write that seeking engagement. As I already knew Equestions almost certainty would not respond because he's a coward. I told you upfront at the beginning, that I wrote it because it needed to be said and I felt the need to express that.
@Dhorpatan I don't really see how I'm preachy, if giving advice is preaching then you must live in a strange world, and likewise you have no idea if I'm goody-goody or not and that's by and large irrelevant to the claim of someone being preachy.
It's odd to address something to someone if you don't wish for any engagement, or in fact, to continue replying to another if you likewise don't wish for any engagement. But then we've established you live in a strange world, so them's the breaks.
You preached on the same "advice" over and over. That same "Advice" was unwanted, and unsolicited, and you held forth like a moralizing sermon, on character limits, and moralized on when and where a person should write, what you preached, was an essay.
If you would like to have a written debate with me on the evidence you have that the Universe cannot be eternal, go ahead. This petty crap needs to be let go.
@Dhorpatan To wax lyrical about how someone replied to a comment of yours and how their reply was unsolicited loses it's potency when you consider the context of this being a social medium. It being wanted or not is irrelevant, as I said, you don't want replies, don't post publicly. As to have a written debate with you, I'm not sure you realize how poor of a case for my time you make, but you would need to show how you could have an actual infinite set of events to have an infinite universe.
Sure it's relevant to me making a substantive case for why I said you are preachy and self righteous. Which you didn't understand how you were. I explained how. Simple as that.
And I also said you held forth like a moralizing sermon on character limits, moralized on when and where a person should write, what YOU PREACHED, was an essay.
I offered a more than strong enough case and substantiation for why you are self-righteous. And being preachy is synonymous with being self righteous.
"I'm not sure you realize how poor of a case for my time you make"
Actually, based on the numbers, production value, and my accomplishments online, which include origial music, original poetry innovations, original Atheological arguments, a video helping others on how to make money, and ideas that have never been done before in human history, like the top 10 ways you know God is a man made construct, you make a poor case for my time. Seriously poor.
You're the one that arrogantly brought up that I make a poor case for your time.
Based on our channels, you are a nobody, and you make a poor case for my time, considering my creativity, channel numbers, and accomplishments in poetry, music, Atheology, and Capitalism.
@Dhorpatan You do make a poor case for my time. It has nothing to do with your e-cv either, it has to do with your *attitude*.
My channel? Heh, if only you knew how little my channel means to me. It's for personal use only, I'm flattered you even looked. You've probably checked more times than I have! XD
And you make a poor case for my time with your attitude as well. Since I already argued for the fact that you are arrogant and self-righteous.
You're the one that brought up someone not being worthy of your worthless time, which is arrogant and conceited. But based on our channels, you're a waste of MY TIME.
No. You are refusing to take quantum mechanics into account. The quantum mechanical state of the Universe, is different from the macroscopic state of the Universe.
Further, you are employing flawed logic in assuming that if something is finite, it has a beginning of existence. This is not true for necessary beings. The Universe is a necessary being since denial of it leads to self contradiction.
@Dhorpatan If something begins to exist, clearly it's not a necessary being. How does denial of the existence of the universe lead to self-contradiction?
@Dhorpatan That's bizarre. If this kind of reasoning holds, then everyone would have to conclude that they themselves are necessary beings, for they could not affirm or deny anything unless they first exist. That seems to be a pretty poor understanding of what "necessary" is.
Though it certainly is false that the universe does not exist, that doesn't mean that it is impossible for the universe to, say, cease to exist, nor is it logically impossible for the universe to have never been.
@Dhorpatan Oh I'm sure it is different, but you cannot have your cake and eat it. Either the universe is finite in age, or it isn't. You say, when asked, "Yes it is!" but you aren't talking about the universe, you are talking about the quantum vacuum. Then when asked how can it have a finite age, you say, "Well it's macroscopic state, is actually 13.7 bl years old." and are then talking about the universe as understood in the context of the argument. Pick one, and stick with it.
No. What it means is, the Universe has always existed, but a given state within the Universe is 13.7 billion years old. I think I already told you upfront that the Quantum vacuum is the foundational state of the Universe.
@Dhorpatan Yes I do. As I said, you are equivocating. You cannot have your cake and eat it too. You answer the same question two different ones, in one instance it's eternal, in another it's state is 13.7 billion years old.
What you are really saying is that the universe is eternal.
You are improperly using the logical fallacy of equivocation, since I am not using a word or term in two different ways within an argument. Like using light to mean brightness, then also using it to mean light in weight.
@Dhorpatan You are giving two answers to the same question. It's equivocation as it's misleading, you are using a term in more than one meaning or sense, in this case you are substituting the Quantum Vacuum for the Universe, and then changing your response as appropriate.
So I'll ask you plainly, how old is the universe - not, how old is the universe's current macroscopic state?
"in this case you are substituting the quantum vacuum for the Universe"
Nah. The Quantum Vacuum and the Universe are the same thing. It's just a different state of the Universe. The quantum vacuum is entailed in the Quantum regime, as described by quantum mechanics.
@Dhorpatan Bingo, they are the same thing. In which case, my question again, "How old is the universe?" I'm not asking what it's current macroscopic state is. So answer the question, I'm sure you know where this is going. :)
@Dhorpatan And then my suggestion is that it is great if both side contemplate on what is the weakest argument from their own side, and what is the strongest argument from the opposition. If one is not able to do this in a topic which we do not have the answer yet really to be honest,then I'd say that individual is bias.
Sure I do. You refuse to stop being dishonest and so you refuse to take my articulation on it's own terms. I said from the very start that the Universe is eternal, but it's macroscopic state is 13.7 billion years old.
Just because you refuse to accept that, and deal with it honestly, doesn't mean you win. It just means you're dishonest.
@Dhorpatan I asked how old the universe is, and you equivocate on your answer, on the one hand you say it's eternal, on the other you say that it's current state is 13.7 billion years old.
You cannot have it both ways. It's just that simple.
"You cannot have it both ways. It's just that simple"
You are misusing the fallacy of equivocation. You are also showing your ignorance of Cosmology. It is a Scientific fact that the Universe has two states. The Macroscopic state as described by General Relativity and Classical Mechanics, and the Microscopic state as described by Quantum Mechanics.
The Quantum state is eternal, and the macroscopic state emerged from that 13.7 billion years ago.
@Dhorpatan Stop saying I am accusing you of a fallacy, I am not. I'm saying you are equivocating. That's an actual word you know, it means you are being dishonest and interchanging the meaning of a word, answer or question.
So if the quantum vacuum is part of the universe, the universe is eternal, yes?
@Dhorpatan "That's an actual word you know, it means you are being dishonest and interchanging the meaning of a word, answer or question." The full quote helps illuminate things, you don't get to post out of context snippets like atheists love to do.
The word and as a result the question and answer which you are equivocating on is 'universe'.
You take it to mean 'quantum vacuum' when you wish it to be eternal, and 'macroscopic state' when you wish it to be finite. Pick one.
"You take it to mean quantum vacuum when you wish it to be eternal and macroscopic state when you wish it to be finite"
That's dishonest on your part, since if I'm not mistaken, I've never given you my explicit definition of what I mean by Universe. So that shows that your charge of equivocation is dishonest and bogus.
For the record, I define the Universe as the totality of everything that exists. But since Theists likely don't define the Universe as that, I define the Universe AT THE VERY LEAST, as all of the natural realm. Which includes all of space, time, matter and energy.
@Dhorpatan So, if having an infinite age leads to all the contradictions and problems you mentioned, how can you say that the universe is eternal? Change occurs on the quantum as well as on the macro level, so surely time passes for both, and this very passage suggests a finite past for the universe on all levels?
@Dhorpatan Time is time. If there are tensed events, then time flows for that thing. The quantum state of the universe is in constant flux, which entails the passage of time, which entails a past, which entails a finite past. I really don't see how you can escape the conclusion that the universe, on whatever scale, began to exist.
No, not at all. Since i said from the very beginning that the Universe is eternal, but that the macroscopic state of the Universe is 13.7 billion years old. That's a clear distinction.
SORT OF similar to saying the Earth is 4.6 billion years old, but you are 25 years old(or whatever). The Earth is a given state, and you are a given state.
You are confused. I can deny God, and I am not left in contradiction, because GOD IS NOT A NECESSARY BEING. But if you deny the Universe, as in say it doesn't exist, well obviously you are contradicting yourself because you are living on a planet that is in the Universe, and you are made of energy which is of the Universe, and you are living within the Universe, and you are spatial, etc.
So to deny the Universe exists entails a contradiction. The Universe would have to exist to make the denial.
@Dhorpatan I think you don't understand what a necessary being is. By this reasoning, your body is a necessary being, surely, but that isn't right. A thing is a necessary being if there is no logically coherent state of affairs in which it doesn't exist. Yet, surely, it is logically coherent to say that the universe might not have existed, or perhaps that a different universe and not this particular universe might have existed instead.
My body is not a necessary being, because my body is not eternal. A corollary of a necessary being, is eternality. Otherwise, if it came into being at some point, obviously it's contingent, not necessary.
A necessary being is universal, eternal, objectively self evident, and cannot be denied without self contradiction. For example, the Laws of Logic are necessary beings. The Laws of Logic are universal, eternal, objectively self evident, and cannot be denied without self contradiction.
@Dhorpatan The laws of logic are necessary objects, not beings. God is an eternal being, in fact the word Yahweh in ancient Hebrew means 'uncreated one'. Additionally as the author of the universe God is by definition outside of time itself, and has no beginning of existence. This is all quite logical.
@Dhorpatan Then we cannot discuss when you are ignorant of philosophical terms, I just go by what the Encyclopedia says, you don't get to make up a special Dhorpatan version and have me adhere to it, sorry, that line of enquirey is at an end until you shed your ignorance.
You can't even spell (inquiry) you numpty. I never said I disagree with the Stanford Encyclopedia definition of necessary being as that which could not have failed to exist. But a necessary being, being that which cannot be denied without self contradiction, is correct, and I sent you two PM's to that effect to prove that.
It's just that saying "it could not have failed to exist" doesn't tell us much. It what ways can we know a being could not have failed to exist?
You are attempting to have a philosophical discussion and are not using the terms in their philosophical sense. I offer you three encyclopedic philosophical resources, and you offer... the oxford dictionary! Of course!
As a port of lol, your definition says:
noun
1
the moment when the universe came into being
Which is hilarious. You want to use the encyclopedia, or the Oxford dictionary, which believes in a finite universe! :D
@DigitalDecadence I'm also not responding to the myriad of other PMs you sent me. Either make your point concisely and accurately, or I'm just going to ignore you as I don't have time to educate you on every one of your posts.
It's still wrong. It would be spelled enquiry, not enquirey. And you can sincerely kiss my behind. Based on your channel, you are a nobody, and in no position to educate me on anything. You can take your arrogance and worthless time and shove it where the sun don't shine.
Based on your behavior on the word enquiry alone, it shows you are hardheaded, intransigent and ignorant, and even when proved wrong, you will refuse to admit it like Nephlimfree.
@Dhorpatan It's an equally valid and alternate spelling. You know you should look in the mirror sometime, because what you say here, "Based on your behavior on the word enquiry alone, it shows you are hardheaded, intransigent and ignorant, and even when proved wrong, you will refuse to admit it like Nephlimfree." really applies to only one person here, you. You brought it up and decided to write a treatise on it, not me. *shrugs*
When I look up the word Enquirey on Oxford Dictionary, it comes up with an error where the word is not found. Same thing on Merriam Webster. It comes back as no such word and tells me if I meant inquiry with spelling suggestions.
It's not valid, and is wrong. Enquiry however is an alternate spelling of inquiry. But not your enquirey.
YOU WERE WRONG. And you're too much of a jerk to admit it or let it go.
@Dhorpatan I didn't notice I had put an extra 'e', you were right I meant "enquiry". I was focused on that as you had said that, "inquiry" was the proper spelling, (in/en). That was my mistake, and it costs me nothing to admit it.
@Dhorpatan I'm not sure if you recall but I once said, some people are not interested in truth, they are only interested in being right. I'm not one of those people, but it seems perhaps you are from how you behave. I notice this a lot with atheists, do such minor victories mean so much to you? That's why I said it cost me nothing to admit I made a mistake as I'm not focused on being right, but rather on the truth.
@Dhorpatan Well you don't think God did make the universe, because you don't think the universe had a beginning of it's existence, right? Or are you say the universe did begin to exist as some finite time in the past?
@Dhorpatan I distinctly recall you saying that last time, you engaged with me, that I backed off, and yet oddly I recall the exact same thing happening here, as happened there. I'm so sorry that your worldview is unsustainable, but that doesn't give you the right to take it out on others. The fact that the sources you quote to educate me on definitions, happened to say that "the universe came into being", really isn't my fault. It's just amusing.
@Dhorpatan Then you are using it incorrectly, as that is not how it's used in philosophy. See the Standford online Encyclopedia or the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy to learn the correct uses of the terms, and also the correct definition of necessary.
@Dhorpatan God is a necessary being. Again you state opinion like fact, oh if it were so easy. /watch?v=ndmnIs2gMzI
But additionally you are misusing what a necessary object is, or a necessary being is. To say that my house is necessary, simply because I am in it, and so to deny it I would need to be external to it, is - well, true in one sense, but it doesn't mean my house is necessary. :)
Also you have no proof that our external sense are accurate,
God is in no way, shape, or form, a necessary being logically/Ontically. To be a necessary being, is to be eternal, Universal, objectively self evident, and unable to be denied without self contradiction.
God is logically not eternal, since God is sentient, and sentience has a cause. God is not Universal, since God is not logically presupposed by all things. God is not objectively self evident like for example Stars, and I can deny God without self contradiction.
@Dhorpatan Also your definition of what is necessary is incorrect. Please see the Standford's Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy plato.stanford.edu/entries/god-necessary-being/ for the correct definition, as it will help you understand.
@Dhorpatan I'm also not sure how the quantum level of the universe could be immune to the passage of time. Surely, spontaneous fluctuations occur all the time- things come into being and pass out of being, no one quantum state ever lasts for more than the briefest of instants, and so on. Clearly, this seems to entail that change, and thus time, flows just as much on the micro as the macro scale.
Gotta love the Dr. Who music xD
Pe0ads 1 week ago 2
Comment removed
Pe0ads 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Dawkins is a hack. It's easy to see through him. It would be fine if he chose to be more humble and honest about himself for what he really is: An ethologist... and an armchair philosopher for the lay person. He shouldn't arrogantly challenge people to debates on the existence of something like God; God is too deep of an idea for an ethologist, like him, to articulate. Doctors of philosophy are better suited for the task of forming a worthwhile argument of God's existence, or non-existence.
983215ljhlkadbspig6y 1 month ago
Comment removed
983215ljhlkadbspig6y 1 month ago
Comment removed
983215ljhlkadbspig6y 1 month ago
Why would RICHARD DAWKINS WORRY about William Lane Craigs Interpretation of A "FALSE STORY" (THAT NEVER HAPPENED) LOOOL OWNED
1xThreeDaysGrace1x 1 month ago
Christian faith....yuck
japonizieify 3 months ago
@japonizieify
"Christian faith....yuck"
The intellectual poverty of New Atheism in a NUTSHELL (as opposed to... in a chair)!
X-D
Birdieupon 3 months ago 6
@Birdieupon "The intellectual poverty of New Atheism in a NUTSHELL (as opposed to... in a chair)!"
Wasn't supposed to be an intellectual argument! X-D.
I just think that the Christian doctrine is deplorable and that people should be ashamed for following the faith.
If the Christian doctrine is true then I wish to have nothing to do with God’s grand soul harvesting plan.
japonizieify 3 months ago
@Birdieupon
Aww, ignorance must be bliss. Don't lets take Santa Claus away from you too. Denial and ignorance, you are simply walking around this planet with your hands over your eyes singing "lalala I'm not listening".
jayphys85 1 month ago
@jayphys85
Sorry, didn't quite catch that... say that again please? ;-)
Birdieupon 3 weeks ago
Whatever Dawkins's real reasons were for refusing to debate Craig, the fact remains that the latter is an apologist for genocide and doesn't deserve to be taken seriously.
nyscholartist 3 months ago
@nyscholartist
"the latter is an apologist for genocide and doesn't deserve to be taken seriously"
It wasnt genocide (straw man) and his academic credentials outweigh those of Dawkins, who is not taken seriously in contemporary science due to the fact that he's never actually contributed anything to science which wasn't rejected (his Professorship is of writing books for lay people, not peer review).
Craig, however, has the most responses of any theistic philosopher in the academic journals.
Birdieupon 3 months ago 4
@Birdieupon Okay, let's grant that Dawkins is a nobody compared to Craig for the sake of argument. Let's also grant that your definition of genocide is such that the massacre of Amalekite, Moabite, and Midianite children and infants doesn't count. It is still a massacre. And if there were any objective moral values, they couldn't possibly include on any moral philosophy the slaughter of innocent children. Again, Craig doesn't deserve to be taken seriously.
nyscholartist 3 months ago
@Birdieupon @Birdieupon "It wasnt genocide (straw man)"
LOL!...how was it not?... worrying...
"Who is not taken seriously in contemporary science due to the fact that he's never actually contributed anything to science which wasn't rejected "
google "list if publications by Richard Dawkins and scroll down to the academic papers"
Look at the academic papers section. Have ALL of those contributions been rejected? Or are you LYING?
japonizieify 3 months ago
@Birdieupon
"Dawkins, who is not taken seriously in contemporary science due to the fact that he's never actually contributed anything to science which wasn't rejected"
His peer reviewed work in his own field (zoology) was rejected?
JCrownwell 2 months ago
@Birdieupon which 'academic journals' are you referring to?
guwest2 1 day ago
@nyscholartist Apologist for genocide? NO. It is known the atheistic rulers have done just as much atrocities in the past. Do you think Mao was a good leader? Or Stalin? What about Lenin or Mussolini? Or Castro?
oscarmarin1995 1 month ago
@oscarmarin1995 Whether one wants to call it genocide or a brutal massacre, the fact that remains that the killing of innocent children, infants, and livestock for no other reason than that they happened to be living on the land that the Israelites wanted was pure evil. Yes, there are plenty of rulers who happened to be atheists who have committed atrocities. That doesn't excuse what God allegedly ordered the Israelites to do to the Amalekites. Two wrongs do not make a right.
nyscholartist 1 month ago
@nyscholartist The Amalekites cup of iniquity had overflowed with death. They sacrificed their children, worshiped idols and who knows what else... Now I agree that "two wrongs don't make a right". However, God's judgement is always just. The Amalekites were welcomed by Israel to be immigrants and know YHWH. They were also warned. The Amalekites chose to keep doing evil. So evil was punished. Today is different though because Jesus came to die for the world.
oscarmarin1995 1 month ago
@oscarmarin1995 Even if the Amalekites had become a wicked people, surely their children, infants, and livestock were not guilty of any sin or wrongdoing. How can it possibly right to say, "Well, they were evil, they sacrificed their own children, so God ordered that they be exterminated, including the children." If I think you are evil for sacrificing your children, that doesn't make it morally laudable for me to kill your children for you.
nyscholartist 1 month ago
@oscarmarin1995 Reading these stories is gut-wrenching and it is very very difficult to see how any of this is "just" by human standards, let alone divine ones. "God's judgement is just" is a common theistic refrain and is little more than a variation of "We can't understand God's mysterious ways, God's knowledge far surpasses ours," which is uttered whenever sceptics point out how irrational and barbaric certain parts of the Bible are.
nyscholartist 1 month ago
@oscarmarin1995 It becomes just one more way for the monotheisms to inoculate themselves against any kind of criticism; refer everything up to the unknowable, and you're good to go. Again, killing innocent children and infants is not just; they are not guilty of any evil, so they cannot be punished in any way. As for Christ being the only way to heaven, I disagree.
nyscholartist 1 month ago
@oscarmarin1995 The doctrine of original sin is illogical. Why should I be held responsible for what two naked teenagers did in a garden in ancient Mesopotamia? That makes no moral sense whatever. If the doctrine of original sin is shown to be preposterous, then the blood sacrifice of Christ becomes superfluous. One of the absurdities of Christianity is that it simultaneous debases and exalts the human being.
nyscholartist 1 month ago
@oscarmarin1995 On the one hand, we are all born in sin, we are born sick, and then commanded to get well; unless animals and men are sacrificed to God, He will never accept our good deeds. On the other hand, take heart, the entire universe was created with us in mind, we are made in God's image, we are the crown of His creation, and so on. These ideas and precepts are all very difficult to accept. I think the best hope a critically reflective Christian has lies in the work of Immanuel Kant
nyscholartist 1 month ago
@oscarmarin1995 who argued for a kind of rational, moral faith purely within the boundaries of reason. So I think that it is possible to have a conception of God without necessarily subscribing to or practising any of the monotheisms.
nyscholartist 1 month ago
@nyscholartist "Say to them, ‘As I live!’ declares the Lord God, ‘I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that the wicked turn from his way and live. Turn back, turn back from your evil ways! Why then will you die, O house of Israel?’" Ex 33.11
That was just my attempt to answer your belief on the Israelite Amalekite situation.
The reason is that Christ is the only way to heaven. His death paid for our sins.
oscarmarin1995 1 month ago
@nyscholartist I haven't heard WLC debate defending Christianity before
oscarmarin1995 1 month ago
@oscarmarin1995 In his debates with Shabir Ally and with Bart Ehrman, WLC defends the resurrection of Jesus as the keystone of the Christian faith.
nyscholartist 1 month ago
@oscarmarin1995 I do think that Craig is a very smart man, having listened to more of his debates with atheists. He is the best defender of the traditional arguments for the existence of God out there. However, I think that his arguments for the inerrant truth of the Bible and of Christianity are not nearly as strong. If there is a loving, merciful God, and He knows our hearts, then He ought not to punish those
nyscholartist 1 month ago
@oscarmarin1995 who seek Him and live morally upright lives but happen not to be convinced about Christianity or accept Christ as their saviour.
nyscholartist 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Dawkins partially took Abraham Lincoln’s advice: “Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt.”
joehardysr 3 months ago
God Bless Richard Dawkins. I also said this to a packed crowd some weeks ago. If It was not for his book 'The God Delusion' I would have never discovered arguments for and against God. I subsequently chose something I never intended...I ended up becoming a Christian.
plakey2001 3 months ago 19
Welcome back, Birdieupon!
joehardysr 3 months ago 3
But the Oxford Dictionary says that the universe had a beginning of it's existence Dhorpatan... :)
DigitalDecadence 3 months ago
@DigitalDecadence
That's fine. Wordnetweb dott Princeton defines the Universe as everything that exists anywhere. And Wikipedia defines the Universe as the totality of everything that exists. And on both those definitions, it is logically impossible for the Universe to have a beginning of it's existence.
The Oxford people aren't here to give a Scientific or logical defense of their claim that the Universe had a beginning of it's existence. So it's just a bare assertion. Why are you EVADING?
Dhorpatan 3 months ago
@Dhorpatan Well if it's absolutely everything that exists anywhere, that would include God, so it would indeed be eternal on that definition, although that's not typically what is meant.
Funny how the Oxford people are fine to define a word when you LIKE it's definition, but not when they make a claim you dislike.
DigitalDecadence 3 months ago
@DigitalDecadence
Well sure it would include God if he existed, but the existence of God is not a fact. Further, that would still and does mean the Universe is eternal. As the totality of everything that exists cannot come into being in total.
Why are you evading my question? I thought you Christians had the goods and the Atheists like Prof Dawkins ran and evaded? Hahahahah!
Dhorpatan 3 months ago
@Dhorpatan You don't have a question... on your definition of the universe, which is everything in existence ever, ever, ever, it would include God. So, the universe is eternal in that respect. As to the mechanics of everything in existence, ever, ever, ever, no one knows. So what then, are you asking? I can happily play to your definition, it makes little difference to me. :)
DigitalDecadence 3 months ago
@DigitalDecadence
"on your definition of the Universe"
Yeah, but YOU DON'T define the Universe as everything that exists. That's why, if I remember correctly, I already said at the very least, the Universe is the natural realm, which includes all of space, time, matter, and energy.
So how did your made up God create the Universe? You sure are acting silly and evading pathetically.
Dhorpatan 3 months ago
@Dhorpatan If you spent less time criticising, oh sorry, criticizing me, and more time making a point it would be helpful. If you are saying the universe is only the natural realm going back to the singularity, then it has a beginning of existence. I really wish you would make up your mind... which one is it?
DigitalDecadence 3 months ago
@DigitalDecadence
But of course that would make you fallacious since you are begging the question on their being a singularity, as there is no Science that proves a singularity to the Universe.
Last time and I have to move on. I tire of playing your childish evading games.
How did your made up God create the Universe, if the Universe is understood as the natural realm, and you are of the position he created it.
Dhorpatan 3 months ago
@Dhorpatan The current modern day cosmology clearly indicates a singularity. Not to mention an actual infinite series of events leads to several logical paradoxes, thus eliminating that as a rational belief.
Stop pretending I didn't answer your non-question, as I said, "As to the mechanics of everything in existence, ever, ever, ever, no one knows."
DigitalDecadence 3 months ago
@DigitalDecadence
What do you mean by the word "indicates"? And what Science "indicates" this? Why do you say "indicates", rather than prove, or confirm?
Dhorpatan 3 months ago
@Dhorpatan Because that's what modern day cosmology says. It indicates a singularity. To claim that science proves something so grandiose as the beginning of the universe, when we are stranded on a speck of dust lost amid a hostile universe of billions of stays, is quite arrogant. We don't know for sure, but current modern day cosmology indicates that this is the case of a universe such as ours which is expanding and cooling over time.
DigitalDecadence 3 months ago
@DigitalDecadence
What modern day cosmology indicates a singularity?
Dhorpatan 3 months ago
@Dhorpatan You don't think it does? What does it indicate if not a singularity?
DigitalDecadence 3 months ago
@DigitalDecadence
There is no Science that proves or indicates a singularity. Is that all you have? You can't give a Scientific or logical account of how your make believe God created the Universe, and all you have is Science you think INDICATES the Universe has a singularity. Meanwhile, I can explain logically and Scientifically how and why the Universe is eternal.
I should have known based on your channel you would be a waste of my time.
Dhorpatan 3 months ago
@Dhorpatan You keep raising my channel, and I'm just perplexed as to what that has to do with anything? Do you just skip over the parts where I say, "My channel is for personal use." as in, it's not for anyone other than me... personally?
In the same breath you condemn me for not knowing how God created the universe, and then say you can explain why it's eternal. Those two things aren't the same question. If the universe includes everything as per your definition, I agree it's eternal...?!
DigitalDecadence 3 months ago
@DigitalDecadence
It means i have logic and reason behind my position, while you only have faith, since you can't give a logical and Scientific account.
It shows you believe in God based not on the evidence or Science, but for the selfish desire of eternal life and for blessings.
You should stop believing in invisible magic beings and the Occult, and embrace logic and reality.
Dhorpatan 3 months ago
@Dhorpatan I don't know what you are saying here, it's not really relevant to anything I said or asked.
I asked:
A) Do you willfully ignore where I state my channel is just a personal channel for me, myself and I.
B) You are asking two different questions, 1) How did God create the universe != 2) Is the universe eternal?
Lastly I stated that on your definition of the universe, I agree it's eternal, and so I have no idea what your point is as there is nothing to contest...?!
DigitalDecadence 3 months ago
@DigitalDecadence
A) Your channel is the only thing I have to evaluate you on. It's the only thing I have to go by, and judging by your channel, I should have known you would be a waste of my time.
B) No, you just have comprehension problems. I clearly asked three time or so how did your God create the Universe.
C) You have comprehension problems. I said "but you don't define the Universe as everything that exists".
You have been a complete waste of time.
Dhorpatan 3 months ago
@Dhorpatan A) No it isn't. I evaluated you on your arrogant, insulting behaviour, I've not looked and doubt I will, at your channel. I don't measure a person by their accomplishments or achievements, but by how they treat others.
B) I acknowledged you asked me how God created the universe, and I answered it twice. It's not the same questions as, "Is the universe eternal?" clearly.
C) On your definition of the universe I agree, on my definition the universe isn't eternal.
DigitalDecadence 3 months ago
@DigitalDecadence
I'm not backing off. I'm still here. You're "apparently" a Christian. Christianity has nothing to back off from. The fact that Christianity is based on the Primacy of Mind/Consciousness, has already proven beyond doubt that Christianity is false.
Dhorpatan 3 months ago
@DigitalDecadence
What is your definition of the word Universe?
Dhorpatan 3 months ago
@DigitalDecadence
Both the Quantum Vacuum and the macroscopic state are the Universe, since they both ENTAIL ENERGY, and are NATURAL.
It's just that the macroscopic state emerged from the Quantum vacuum 13.7 billion years ago. There is no equivocation, or logical inconsistency with this, and it is consistent with Science and reality.
Dhorpatan 3 months ago
@DigitalDecadence
That's not having it both ways. That's simply being consistent with Science and reality. Both are the Universe, just different states of it. Like Abiogenesis and Evolution are both biological, just different states or regimes of it, and ABIOGENESIS CAME FIRST.
Dhorpatan 3 months ago
@DigitalDecadence
"Then I have no idea why you wold offer to debate me, when I make such a bad case for your time"
Because I am a man of the people. I try not to see my self as better than others, and am not AN ELITIST like Thunderf00t, Veritas48, Dawahfilms, or ZOMgitscriss.
I take on all worthy challengers who I feel are sincere and intellectually capable. At least as much as patience and time allow.
Dhorpatan 3 months ago
@DigitalDecadence
I already challenged you on your claims that the Universe had a beginning. If I remember correctly, and you backed down.
If you want to deal with substance go ahead. So you can get your little Christian butt intellectually kicked, since logic and Science are on the side of Objectivism and Strong Atheism.
Dhorpatan 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Dhorpatan You don't remember correctly.
DigitalDecadence 3 months ago
@DigitalDecadence
I already knew Equestions wouldn't respond because he's a coward and a joke. All Equestions is good for, at least on Youtube, is making snide comments on the videos of people who tell him what he wants to hear, and agree with his predetermined beliefs.
His main concern is making money, as it should be, and he drops in occasionally to YouTube to berate Evolution or some other Atheist, talk crap, and run away. He's not good for anything substantive or unbiased.
Dhorpatan 3 months ago
@DigitalDecadence
"I only replied now, as I have a life"
Congratulations on you having a SOCIAL LIFE. Billions of people have social lives. Ants have a social life. So?
Dhorpatan 3 months ago
Does anyone know where (or when) I could find an audio or video of the night?
MrDjmeves 4 months ago
@MrDjmeves
Won't be long til it's out.
Birdieupon 4 months ago
Dawkins is a scaredepoo mer mer mer mer merrrrr LOL
zezt 4 months ago
Amazing to say the least!
Jacob011 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Ah yes... Dawkins: ultimate 'dilettante' of atheist apolgetics.
I don't care what you say. I don't care if you've shaken his hand, or created some contrived video, or read the books some people think Dawkins wrote...
If there is a Dawkins, why hasn't he shown himself to me?
ChapmaniacPictures 4 months ago
Dhorpatan, if you need to post 13 comments to say what you need to say, please don't be surprised if you are just ignored. Try making your point without writing an essay, and then see if people wish to engage with you, otherwise you are only wasting your time, no one elses.
DigitalDecadence 4 months ago
@DigitalDecadence
I didn't write that seeking engagement. I wrote that because it needed to be said, and I felt the need to express that. I required 13 posts because there's a character limit.
I don't need your whiny, self righteous malarkey trying to tell me what to do. As if your whiny, persnickety, fussy comment wasn't a waste of time.
Dhorpatan 4 months ago
@Dhorpatan What I was pointing out, is that upon seeing (Part 13) I just stopped reading. That isn't to say I read parts 1-12, and lost it at 13, I just thought if you needed 13 parts due to the character limit to say something, then this isn't the place to say it. That's why there is a character limit, it's not there just to make your life difficult, it's there to stop people posting essays - those who circumvent it, are just ignored.
DigitalDecadence 4 months ago
@DigitalDecadence
But that's the thing. You are(as usual), being a self righteous little prick. Because no one told you to read the posts. Do they look like they were directed at you?
And the character limit is there to stop people posting essays. Where did you get that from? Is that written on Google's blog or website or something? Or did you just make that up of your own beliefs, and pass if off as if it's the truth? LOL!
Dhorpatan 4 months ago
@Dhorpatan Why do you think there is a character limit? It's a *comments* section, not an *essay* section.
You seem very angry when all I was doing was pointing out why it's likely not in your best interest to post essay-length treatise on someone's video, as A) No one is going to read them, and B) They will be buried by other comments momentarily. But you keep ignoring good advice, and let me know how that works out for - hopefully in less than 13 separate replies...
DigitalDecadence 4 months ago
@DigitalDecadence
Yep, and those were comments. Just happened to be 13 of them. Who's the judge of what is an essay and what is not? Some clown named DigitalDecadence?
What is an essay by definition? Oxford Dictionary defines essay as : a short piece of writing on a particular subject. That doesn't seem to work at all for you. What is short is subjective. Your three posts so far on this subject could then be considered an ESSAY.
Dhorpatan 4 months ago
@Dhorpatan You are hopeless. As you were.
DigitalDecadence 4 months ago
@DigitalDecadence
Good. Shut up DigitalDecandance. I can't stand your preachy self righteous crap. I wasn't even talking to you.
As you were.
Dhorpatan 4 months ago
@Dhorpatan If you wish your conversation to be private, use PMs, otherwise anyone can/will reply. If you wish to have a little temper tantrum like a child, you will probably also be ignored. I'm just trying to help you, you obviously wish to engage with people in discussion, but your belligerent attitude prevents any real discussion from happening as all you achieve is showing yourself to be an arrogant bigot. I look forward to reading your exchange with Equestions, if he ever replies that is.
DigitalDecadence 3 months ago
@DigitalDecadence
No, Equestions won't be replying almost certainty, because he's a coward and probably a bigot(I have no proof of that though). You're not helping me out. You are just being a self righteous jerk.
You probably are deluded into thinking you are helping me out because you are arrogant, self righteous, and thus convinced in the correctness of your opinion. Notice you could have let this be at peace, but you started it up again after over 23 hours. Cause you're a jerk.
Dhorpatan 3 months ago
@Dhorpatan You state opinion like fact. I don't really see how I'm being self-righteous, I was merely pointing out that from experience the more people write in comments, spanning several comments, the less inclined posters are to reply. You spend time and effort writing your thoughts down, and you get nothing for it. That seems like a bad deal, so I was trying to show you this, but if you wish to continue fighting that paper dragon, by all means. I only replied now, as I have life. :)
DigitalDecadence 3 months ago
@DigitalDecadence
You're being self-righteous because you are preachy and goody-goody. You talk down to others as if you are holier than thou and can tell them how they should and should not act.
I told you from the beginning that I did not write that seeking engagement. As I already knew Equestions almost certainty would not respond because he's a coward. I told you upfront at the beginning, that I wrote it because it needed to be said and I felt the need to express that.
Dhorpatan 3 months ago
@Dhorpatan I don't really see how I'm preachy, if giving advice is preaching then you must live in a strange world, and likewise you have no idea if I'm goody-goody or not and that's by and large irrelevant to the claim of someone being preachy.
It's odd to address something to someone if you don't wish for any engagement, or in fact, to continue replying to another if you likewise don't wish for any engagement. But then we've established you live in a strange world, so them's the breaks.
DigitalDecadence 3 months ago
@DigitalDecadence
"I don't really see how I'm preachy"
You preached on the same "advice" over and over. That same "Advice" was unwanted, and unsolicited, and you held forth like a moralizing sermon, on character limits, and moralized on when and where a person should write, what you preached, was an essay.
If you would like to have a written debate with me on the evidence you have that the Universe cannot be eternal, go ahead. This petty crap needs to be let go.
Dhorpatan 3 months ago
@Dhorpatan To wax lyrical about how someone replied to a comment of yours and how their reply was unsolicited loses it's potency when you consider the context of this being a social medium. It being wanted or not is irrelevant, as I said, you don't want replies, don't post publicly. As to have a written debate with you, I'm not sure you realize how poor of a case for my time you make, but you would need to show how you could have an actual infinite set of events to have an infinite universe.
DigitalDecadence 3 months ago
@DigitalDecadence
"It being wanted or not is irrelevant"
Sure it's relevant to me making a substantive case for why I said you are preachy and self righteous. Which you didn't understand how you were. I explained how. Simple as that.
Dhorpatan 3 months ago
@Dhorpatan Someone isn't preachy or self-righteous merely because they offer advice that is unwanted. As I said, you must live in a strange world.
DigitalDecadence 3 months ago
@DigitalDecadence
And I also said you held forth like a moralizing sermon on character limits, moralized on when and where a person should write, what YOU PREACHED, was an essay.
I offered a more than strong enough case and substantiation for why you are self-righteous. And being preachy is synonymous with being self righteous.
Dhorpatan 3 months ago
@DigitalDecadence
"I'm not sure you realize how poor of a case for my time you make"
Actually, based on the numbers, production value, and my accomplishments online, which include origial music, original poetry innovations, original Atheological arguments, a video helping others on how to make money, and ideas that have never been done before in human history, like the top 10 ways you know God is a man made construct, you make a poor case for my time. Seriously poor.
Dhorpatan 3 months ago
@Dhorpatan I can't tell if you are trolling now. Why on earth would you post that?
I'm assuming you are very young, say, teenage years?
DigitalDecadence 3 months ago
@DigitalDecadence
Why would I post what?
Dhorpatan 3 months ago
@Dhorpatan Your list of accomplishments. How old are you?
DigitalDecadence 3 months ago
@DigitalDecadence
You're the one that arrogantly brought up that I make a poor case for your time.
Based on our channels, you are a nobody, and you make a poor case for my time, considering my creativity, channel numbers, and accomplishments in poetry, music, Atheology, and Capitalism.
Dhorpatan 3 months ago
@Dhorpatan You do make a poor case for my time. It has nothing to do with your e-cv either, it has to do with your *attitude*.
My channel? Heh, if only you knew how little my channel means to me. It's for personal use only, I'm flattered you even looked. You've probably checked more times than I have! XD
DigitalDecadence 3 months ago
@DigitalDecadence
And you make a poor case for my time with your attitude as well. Since I already argued for the fact that you are arrogant and self-righteous.
You're the one that brought up someone not being worthy of your worthless time, which is arrogant and conceited. But based on our channels, you're a waste of MY TIME.
Dhorpatan 3 months ago
@Dhorpatan Then I have no idea why you would offer to debate me, when I make such a bad case for your time. Glad we settled that then! :)
DigitalDecadence 3 months ago
@DigitalDecadence
Why does the Universe need to be infinite, for it to be eternal? You are conflating two separate concepts.
Dhorpatan 3 months ago
@Dhorpatan What do you mean by eternal?
DigitalDecadence 3 months ago
@DigitalDecadence
It always existed.
Dhorpatan 3 months ago
@Dhorpatan So how old would you say an eternal universe is?
DigitalDecadence 3 months ago
@DigitalDecadence
The Universe is eternal. The macroscopic state of the Universe however, is 13.7 billion years old.
Dhorpatan 3 months ago
@Dhorpatan How does something that has always existed have a finite age?
DigitalDecadence 3 months ago
@DigitalDecadence
Because the eternal foundation of the Universe, which is the quantum vacuum, has a different temporality from the macroscopic state of the Universe.
Dhorpatan 3 months ago
@Dhorpatan Well my question and what you responded to, was in regards to the universe not the quantum vacuum.
So the universe itself either has a finite age, or it doesn't. Read as: It has either always existed, or it hasn't.
You don't get to have your cake and eat it too.
DigitalDecadence 3 months ago
@DigitalDecadence
"So the Universe itself either has a finite age, or it doesn't"
That doesn't take quantum mechanics into account. The Macroscopic state of the Universe has a finite age.
Dhorpatan 3 months ago
@Dhorpatan Then the universe is finite in age and had a beginning of existence.
DigitalDecadence 3 months ago
@DigitalDecadence
No. You are refusing to take quantum mechanics into account. The quantum mechanical state of the Universe, is different from the macroscopic state of the Universe.
Further, you are employing flawed logic in assuming that if something is finite, it has a beginning of existence. This is not true for necessary beings. The Universe is a necessary being since denial of it leads to self contradiction.
Dhorpatan 3 months ago
@Dhorpatan If something begins to exist, clearly it's not a necessary being. How does denial of the existence of the universe lead to self-contradiction?
mhssu 3 months ago
@mhssu
"How does denial of the Universe lead to self contradiction"
Because in order to even deny the Universe, it must exist in order for you to make that denial to begin with.
Which means the Universe is a necessary fact/truth.
Dhorpatan 3 months ago
@Dhorpatan That's bizarre. If this kind of reasoning holds, then everyone would have to conclude that they themselves are necessary beings, for they could not affirm or deny anything unless they first exist. That seems to be a pretty poor understanding of what "necessary" is.
Though it certainly is false that the universe does not exist, that doesn't mean that it is impossible for the universe to, say, cease to exist, nor is it logically impossible for the universe to have never been.
mhssu 3 months ago
@Dhorpatan That's philosophical gibberish.
Using your logic, God is likewise a necessary fact/truth.
Because in order to even deny God, He must exist in order for you to make that denial to begin with.
Which means that God is a necessary fact/truth. :)
DigitalDecadence 3 months ago
@Dhorpatan Oh I'm sure it is different, but you cannot have your cake and eat it. Either the universe is finite in age, or it isn't. You say, when asked, "Yes it is!" but you aren't talking about the universe, you are talking about the quantum vacuum. Then when asked how can it have a finite age, you say, "Well it's macroscopic state, is actually 13.7 bl years old." and are then talking about the universe as understood in the context of the argument. Pick one, and stick with it.
DigitalDecadence 3 months ago
@DigitalDecadence
I'm pretty sure you just employed a strawman argument fallacy, because I said from the start quote:
"The Universe is eternal. The macroscopic state of the Universe however, is 13.7 billion years old"
So I didn't say, when asked if the Universe is finite in age "YES IT IS", unless you can show otherwise.
Dhorpatan 3 months ago
@Dhorpatan No. When you say:
"The Universe is eternal. The macroscopic state of the Universe however, is 13.7 billion years old."
What you mean is:
"The Quantum Vacuum is eternal. The macroscopic state of the Universe however, is 13.7 billion years old."
You are equivocating.
DigitalDecadence 3 months ago
@DigitalDecadence
No. What it means is, the Universe has always existed, but a given state within the Universe is 13.7 billion years old. I think I already told you upfront that the Quantum vacuum is the foundational state of the Universe.
Dhorpatan 3 months ago
@Dhorpatan You are equivocating and dancing around with it trying to avoid saying that the universe has an infinite age.
DigitalDecadence 3 months ago
@DigitalDecadence
"but you aren't talking about the Universe, you are talking about the quantum vacuum"
That doesn't make any sense. You do realize the Quantum Vacuum is a part of the Universe right?
Dhorpatan 3 months ago
@Dhorpatan Yes I do. As I said, you are equivocating. You cannot have your cake and eat it too. You answer the same question two different ones, in one instance it's eternal, in another it's state is 13.7 billion years old.
What you are really saying is that the universe is eternal.
DigitalDecadence 3 months ago
@DigitalDecadence
You are improperly using the logical fallacy of equivocation, since I am not using a word or term in two different ways within an argument. Like using light to mean brightness, then also using it to mean light in weight.
Dhorpatan 3 months ago
@Dhorpatan You are giving two answers to the same question. It's equivocation as it's misleading, you are using a term in more than one meaning or sense, in this case you are substituting the Quantum Vacuum for the Universe, and then changing your response as appropriate.
So I'll ask you plainly, how old is the universe - not, how old is the universe's current macroscopic state?
DigitalDecadence 3 months ago
@DigitalDecadence
"in this case you are substituting the quantum vacuum for the Universe"
Nah. The Quantum Vacuum and the Universe are the same thing. It's just a different state of the Universe. The quantum vacuum is entailed in the Quantum regime, as described by quantum mechanics.
This is standard cosmology.
Dhorpatan 3 months ago
@Dhorpatan Bingo, they are the same thing. In which case, my question again, "How old is the universe?" I'm not asking what it's current macroscopic state is. So answer the question, I'm sure you know where this is going. :)
DigitalDecadence 3 months ago
@Dhorpatan And then my suggestion is that it is great if both side contemplate on what is the weakest argument from their own side, and what is the strongest argument from the opposition. If one is not able to do this in a topic which we do not have the answer yet really to be honest,then I'd say that individual is bias.
walkingphilosopher 3 months ago
@DigitalDecadence
"I'm sure you know where this is going"
Sure I do. You refuse to stop being dishonest and so you refuse to take my articulation on it's own terms. I said from the very start that the Universe is eternal, but it's macroscopic state is 13.7 billion years old.
Just because you refuse to accept that, and deal with it honestly, doesn't mean you win. It just means you're dishonest.
Dhorpatan 3 months ago
@Dhorpatan I asked how old the universe is, and you equivocate on your answer, on the one hand you say it's eternal, on the other you say that it's current state is 13.7 billion years old.
You cannot have it both ways. It's just that simple.
DigitalDecadence 3 months ago
@DigitalDecadence
"You cannot have it both ways. It's just that simple"
You are misusing the fallacy of equivocation. You are also showing your ignorance of Cosmology. It is a Scientific fact that the Universe has two states. The Macroscopic state as described by General Relativity and Classical Mechanics, and the Microscopic state as described by Quantum Mechanics.
The Quantum state is eternal, and the macroscopic state emerged from that 13.7 billion years ago.
Dhorpatan 3 months ago
@Dhorpatan Stop saying I am accusing you of a fallacy, I am not. I'm saying you are equivocating. That's an actual word you know, it means you are being dishonest and interchanging the meaning of a word, answer or question.
So if the quantum vacuum is part of the universe, the universe is eternal, yes?
DigitalDecadence 3 months ago
@DigitalDecadence
"and interchanging the meaning of a word"
What word is being changed?
Dhorpatan 3 months ago
@Dhorpatan "That's an actual word you know, it means you are being dishonest and interchanging the meaning of a word, answer or question." The full quote helps illuminate things, you don't get to post out of context snippets like atheists love to do.
The word and as a result the question and answer which you are equivocating on is 'universe'.
You take it to mean 'quantum vacuum' when you wish it to be eternal, and 'macroscopic state' when you wish it to be finite. Pick one.
DigitalDecadence 3 months ago
@DigitalDecadence
"You take it to mean quantum vacuum when you wish it to be eternal and macroscopic state when you wish it to be finite"
That's dishonest on your part, since if I'm not mistaken, I've never given you my explicit definition of what I mean by Universe. So that shows that your charge of equivocation is dishonest and bogus.
Dhorpatan 3 months ago
@DigitalDecadence
For the record, I define the Universe as the totality of everything that exists. But since Theists likely don't define the Universe as that, I define the Universe AT THE VERY LEAST, as all of the natural realm. Which includes all of space, time, matter and energy.
Dhorpatan 3 months ago
@Dhorpatan So, if having an infinite age leads to all the contradictions and problems you mentioned, how can you say that the universe is eternal? Change occurs on the quantum as well as on the macro level, so surely time passes for both, and this very passage suggests a finite past for the universe on all levels?
mhssu 3 months ago
@mhssu
The quantum state of the Universe is grounded on discrete time. The macroscopic state of the Universe is grounded on asymmetric time(continuous).
Dhorpatan 3 months ago
@Dhorpatan Time is time. If there are tensed events, then time flows for that thing. The quantum state of the universe is in constant flux, which entails the passage of time, which entails a past, which entails a finite past. I really don't see how you can escape the conclusion that the universe, on whatever scale, began to exist.
mhssu 3 months ago
@DigitalDecadence
No, not at all. Since i said from the very beginning that the Universe is eternal, but that the macroscopic state of the Universe is 13.7 billion years old. That's a clear distinction.
SORT OF similar to saying the Earth is 4.6 billion years old, but you are 25 years old(or whatever). The Earth is a given state, and you are a given state.
Dhorpatan 3 months ago
@Dhorpatan But I'm not part of the Earth you numpty. XD
DigitalDecadence 3 months ago
@DigitalDecadence
"But I'm not the Earth you numpty"
I don't understand you prick. Did I say you were?
Dhorpatan 3 months ago
You are confused. I can deny God, and I am not left in contradiction, because GOD IS NOT A NECESSARY BEING. But if you deny the Universe, as in say it doesn't exist, well obviously you are contradicting yourself because you are living on a planet that is in the Universe, and you are made of energy which is of the Universe, and you are living within the Universe, and you are spatial, etc.
So to deny the Universe exists entails a contradiction. The Universe would have to exist to make the denial.
Dhorpatan 3 months ago
@Dhorpatan I think you don't understand what a necessary being is. By this reasoning, your body is a necessary being, surely, but that isn't right. A thing is a necessary being if there is no logically coherent state of affairs in which it doesn't exist. Yet, surely, it is logically coherent to say that the universe might not have existed, or perhaps that a different universe and not this particular universe might have existed instead.
mhssu 3 months ago
@mhssu
My body is not a necessary being, because my body is not eternal. A corollary of a necessary being, is eternality. Otherwise, if it came into being at some point, obviously it's contingent, not necessary.
A necessary being is universal, eternal, objectively self evident, and cannot be denied without self contradiction. For example, the Laws of Logic are necessary beings. The Laws of Logic are universal, eternal, objectively self evident, and cannot be denied without self contradiction.
Dhorpatan 3 months ago
@Dhorpatan The laws of logic are necessary objects, not beings. God is an eternal being, in fact the word Yahweh in ancient Hebrew means 'uncreated one'. Additionally as the author of the universe God is by definition outside of time itself, and has no beginning of existence. This is all quite logical.
DigitalDecadence 3 months ago
@DigitalDecadence
"The laws of logic are necessary objects"
No, they're concepts.
Dhorpatan 3 months ago
@Dhorpatan Well either way Dhorpatan they aren't necessary beings are they. *headdesk*
DigitalDecadence 3 months ago
@DigitalDecadence
"they aren't necessary beings are they"
The Laws of Logic are necessary beings.
Dhorpatan 3 months ago
@Dhorpatan Then we cannot discuss when you are ignorant of philosophical terms, I just go by what the Encyclopedia says, you don't get to make up a special Dhorpatan version and have me adhere to it, sorry, that line of enquirey is at an end until you shed your ignorance.
DigitalDecadence 3 months ago
@DigitalDecadence
You can't even spell (inquiry) you numpty. I never said I disagree with the Stanford Encyclopedia definition of necessary being as that which could not have failed to exist. But a necessary being, being that which cannot be denied without self contradiction, is correct, and I sent you two PM's to that effect to prove that.
It's just that saying "it could not have failed to exist" doesn't tell us much. It what ways can we know a being could not have failed to exist?
Dhorpatan 3 months ago
@Dhorpatan "Enquirey" is a valid spelling.
From your PM:
You are attempting to have a philosophical discussion and are not using the terms in their philosophical sense. I offer you three encyclopedic philosophical resources, and you offer... the oxford dictionary! Of course!
As a port of lol, your definition says:
noun
1
the moment when the universe came into being
Which is hilarious. You want to use the encyclopedia, or the Oxford dictionary, which believes in a finite universe! :D
DigitalDecadence 3 months ago
@DigitalDecadence I'm also not responding to the myriad of other PMs you sent me. Either make your point concisely and accurately, or I'm just going to ignore you as I don't have time to educate you on every one of your posts.
DigitalDecadence 3 months ago
@DigitalDecadence
It's still wrong. It would be spelled enquiry, not enquirey. And you can sincerely kiss my behind. Based on your channel, you are a nobody, and in no position to educate me on anything. You can take your arrogance and worthless time and shove it where the sun don't shine.
Based on your behavior on the word enquiry alone, it shows you are hardheaded, intransigent and ignorant, and even when proved wrong, you will refuse to admit it like Nephlimfree.
Dhorpatan 3 months ago
@Dhorpatan It's an equally valid and alternate spelling. You know you should look in the mirror sometime, because what you say here, "Based on your behavior on the word enquiry alone, it shows you are hardheaded, intransigent and ignorant, and even when proved wrong, you will refuse to admit it like Nephlimfree." really applies to only one person here, you. You brought it up and decided to write a treatise on it, not me. *shrugs*
DigitalDecadence 3 months ago
@DigitalDecadence
When I look up the word Enquirey on Oxford Dictionary, it comes up with an error where the word is not found. Same thing on Merriam Webster. It comes back as no such word and tells me if I meant inquiry with spelling suggestions.
It's not valid, and is wrong. Enquiry however is an alternate spelling of inquiry. But not your enquirey.
YOU WERE WRONG. And you're too much of a jerk to admit it or let it go.
Dhorpatan 3 months ago
@Dhorpatan I didn't notice I had put an extra 'e', you were right I meant "enquiry". I was focused on that as you had said that, "inquiry" was the proper spelling, (in/en). That was my mistake, and it costs me nothing to admit it.
DigitalDecadence 3 months ago
@DigitalDecadence
Yeah, YOU WERE WRONG AND MADE A MISTAKE. That feels good to see you admit that. Jerk.
It feels good to me.
Dhorpatan 3 months ago
@Dhorpatan I'm not sure if you recall but I once said, some people are not interested in truth, they are only interested in being right. I'm not one of those people, but it seems perhaps you are from how you behave. I notice this a lot with atheists, do such minor victories mean so much to you? That's why I said it cost me nothing to admit I made a mistake as I'm not focused on being right, but rather on the truth.
DigitalDecadence 3 months ago
@DigitalDecadence
How did your made up God create the Universe?
Dhorpatan 3 months ago
@Dhorpatan Well you don't think God did make the universe, because you don't think the universe had a beginning of it's existence, right? Or are you say the universe did begin to exist as some finite time in the past?
DigitalDecadence 3 months ago
@DigitalDecadence
Well yeah, the Universe is eternal as proven by logic and Science. But on your view, how did God create the Universe?
I'm just asking to see if your answer holds up to logic, reason and most importantly, REALITY.
Dhorpatan 3 months ago
@Dhorpatan I distinctly recall you saying that last time, you engaged with me, that I backed off, and yet oddly I recall the exact same thing happening here, as happened there. I'm so sorry that your worldview is unsustainable, but that doesn't give you the right to take it out on others. The fact that the sources you quote to educate me on definitions, happened to say that "the universe came into being", really isn't my fault. It's just amusing.
Also my channel is for personal use only.
DigitalDecadence 3 months ago
@DigitalDecadence
"The Laws of Logic are necessary objects, not beings"
Being is simply being used as that which exists or is real. Not (being) as in a living BEING/Living organism.
Dhorpatan 3 months ago
@Dhorpatan Then you are using it incorrectly, as that is not how it's used in philosophy. See the Standford online Encyclopedia or the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy to learn the correct uses of the terms, and also the correct definition of necessary.
DigitalDecadence 3 months ago
@Dhorpatan God is a necessary being. Again you state opinion like fact, oh if it were so easy. /watch?v=ndmnIs2gMzI
But additionally you are misusing what a necessary object is, or a necessary being is. To say that my house is necessary, simply because I am in it, and so to deny it I would need to be external to it, is - well, true in one sense, but it doesn't mean my house is necessary. :)
Also you have no proof that our external sense are accurate,
DigitalDecadence 3 months ago
@DigitalDecadence
God is in no way, shape, or form, a necessary being logically/Ontically. To be a necessary being, is to be eternal, Universal, objectively self evident, and unable to be denied without self contradiction.
God is logically not eternal, since God is sentient, and sentience has a cause. God is not Universal, since God is not logically presupposed by all things. God is not objectively self evident like for example Stars, and I can deny God without self contradiction.
Dhorpatan 3 months ago
@Dhorpatan Also your definition of what is necessary is incorrect. Please see the Standford's Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy plato.stanford.edu/entries/god-necessary-being/ for the correct definition, as it will help you understand.
DigitalDecadence 3 months ago
@Dhorpatan I'm also not sure how the quantum level of the universe could be immune to the passage of time. Surely, spontaneous fluctuations occur all the time- things come into being and pass out of being, no one quantum state ever lasts for more than the briefest of instants, and so on. Clearly, this seems to entail that change, and thus time, flows just as much on the micro as the macro scale.
mhssu 3 months ago