YOU'RE WRONG

I challenge theists, atheists, conservatives and liberals to defend your positions.

Category:

Education

Tags:

• atheism
• anarchism
• capitalism
• theist
• politics
• political
• state
• government
• God
• religion
• contrarian

[TruthHidden]

I personally hold the position of agnostic weak atheism for consistency reasons. I do believe I understand you reasons for holding a deist standpoint, based on the information available it is the most rational under general relativity.

[shimboos]

oh and here I was thinkin you were an anarcho fuckupalist...my bad

[andreaandrewmilne]

.... but then say it has elements (1), (2), (3), (4) above, I politley reckon such a "theory" is indeed (i), (ii) or (iii).

The observable universe? As opposed to what? A turquoise unobservable universe? It feels like you want a non-empirical realm, as a "metaphysical playground". I call that pure speculation.

(2) is a scientific claim see competent cosmologists (not my subject).

(3) is your prejudice, about the meaning of causation.

(4) ditto.

That wasnt hard.

x x, andrea

[andreaandrewmilne]

Dear BJA, got your email, many thanks. Reply sent. The standards I applied, though strict, are known to many. They are typical of constructivist approaches to mathematical proof. I use them to flush out metaphysicians [ eg you ;-) ] who think they have a tenable hypothesis about which one may be agnostic, but which on closer inspection is either (i) false, or (ii) patently unfalsifiable, or (iii) strictly contradictory. When you said your position is "not a theory"....

[billyjoeallen]

I don't follow you. How would I supply a demonstration that the existence of anything is non-contradictory? I really don't know what you are asking for. Give me examples of contradictory and non-contradictory sets.

This is the content of my position. It's not a theory:

1. the observable universe exists

2. the universe had a temporal, physical beginning

3. the universe could not have caused it's own existence.

4. something extrauniversal (supernatural) must have caused the universe to exist.

[billyjoeallen]

Your demands are not only unreasonable, but they are counter-productive with regards to ascertaining truth. You said you have a clear picture of my position, but instead of pointing our any flaws in my reasoning or premises, you claim that it doesn't meet some standard apparently known only to you.

1.Movement implies a mover.

2.Big Bang theory + relativity implies a Prime Mover because time is movement.

Is this hard to understand or is it just hard to accept?

[hitchwatch]

I have another pound ready to fry up, but I've got some old beef that I am going to use for stock.

[Hitchenswatchwatch]

Oh fuck off and cook some bacon and get food poisoning, you tedious muppet.

[andreaandrewmilne]

......Tough-minded? You bet, when someone is offering me even the thinnest of thin deisms. Nonetheless, it is possible to meet such argumentative standards. It can be great fun to try!

Regards and x, andrea (the kick-arse-atheist)

[andreaandrewmilne]

(ii) provide the factual evidence which you say is consistent with this set. With a picture of Karl Popper on my bedside, I rarely say a theory is proven, only that it is not yet falsified

(iii) make obvious that the evidence implies your complete set of propositions, rather than some sub-set. With my sharp Okhams razor, I want to see that your purportedly minimum set really is the minimum.