- Joined
- Apr 19, 2006
- Messages
- 14,870
- Reaction score
- 7,128
- Location
- Your Echochamber
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
Is it or is it not your position? You've contradicted yourself.
Is this some kind of hypothetical straw-man?
That is not inherently the atheist position, technically speaking a-theist means without belief. I for one do not believe in any god, for I am skeptical of all of the illogical claims made for EVERY man-made god.
If a person went around claiming "there is no god" without provocation, the more appropo response would be, "What do you mean by that? Man-made deities or deistic prime-movers of all kind possible conceptions? How do you know this?" Because a yes to those statements would imply that this person was claiming to know something that as far as we understand, they couldn't.
However, if we are in a disagreement because you claim there is a god, and I am skeptical, the burden of proof is on you.
Not quite, you're equivocating again. When I say "I own everything in this room" I do not mean the air, the particles, US soil, the people I'm talking to, etc... The use of "everything" requires context.
If you've ever heard someone say "everything was created @ the big bang" they meant the atoms/dark matter that eventually formed the galaxies, they did not mean that the laws of physics are a creative force that determine the future of said universe. In regard to the physical laws, they were set, not created, @ the big bang and if they were set otherwise we wouldn't be here.
So who are you arguing against then? Who has accepted your straw-man as their position that EVERYTHING is "created" by the laws of physics?
I believe everything (matter and space-time) began @ the big bang, and behaves according to the laws of physics.
The thought I have are CREATED in my head though volition, without a god at the source of this universe or determinism setting the @ the big bang.
To regard "everything" as a creation is a misnomer, to regard it as all encompassing is an equivocation; "Everything" requires context. Do you want me to explain how the galaxy we evolved in formed according to the laws of physics?
I don't "need" to do anything, thats what it means to have free-will. Who are these people you allege make this claim?
:yawn: I understand determinism, I also understand it to be tripe. We are not mindless billiard balls. Man is a being of volitional consciousness.
I thought you regarded that argument as false, and not your own?
You're confused again... There is choice, there is free will, man is a being of volitional consciousness, thought is not an automatic process, the connections of logic are not reached by instinct.
Is this some kind of hypothetical straw-man?
That is not inherently the atheist position, technically speaking a-theist means without belief. I for one do not believe in any god.
If a person went around claiming "there is no god" without provocation, the more appropo response would be, "What do you mean by that? Man-made deities or deistic prime-movers of all kind possible conceptions? How do you know this?"
Because a yes to those statements would imply that this person was claiming to know something that as far as we understand, they couldn't.
Not quite, you're equivocating again. When I say "I own everything in this room" I do not mean the air, the particles, US soil, the people I'm talking to, etc...
If you've ever heard someone say "everything was created @ the big bang" they meant the atoms/dark matter that eventually formed the galaxies. In regard to the physical laws, they were set, not created, @ the big bang and if they were set otherwise we wouldn't be here.
So who are you arguing against then? Who has accepted your straw-man as their position that EVERYTHING is "created" by the laws of physics?
I believe everything (matter and space-time) began @ the big bang, and behaves according to the laws of physics.
The thought I have are CREATED in my head though volition, without a god at the source of this universe or determinism setting the @ the big bang.
To regard "everything" as a creation is a misnomer, to regard it as all encompassing is an equivocation; "Everything" requires context. Do you want me to explain how the galaxy we evolved in formed according to the laws of physics?
I don't "need" to do anything, thats what it means to have free-will. Who are these people you allege make this claim?
:yawn: I understand determinism, I also understand it to be tripe. We are not mindless billiard balls. Man is a being of volitional consciousness.
I thought you regarded that argument as false, and not your own?
Chemistry is not just physics, our brain is a computer no matter what the circuits are made of, or how the data is sent. We are so much more than the sum of our parts, its sad to see such obvious cognitive dissonance combined with complete ignorance of the study of neurology.
I have control over my thoughts and body, I can prove it; Can you prove otherwise?
So this blatant misunderstanding of what the laws of physics do IS your position? You do not believe that we have free will? I see...
"Everything" is NOT created by the laws of physics, anyone who claims this (which you seem to be) misunderstands all terms used.
An Atheist states, without provocation: There is no God. There is no proposal to the contrary, implied or explicit, there is only his statement
Is this some kind of hypothetical straw-man?
That is not inherently the atheist position, technically speaking a-theist means without belief. I for one do not believe in any god, for I am skeptical of all of the illogical claims made for EVERY man-made god.
The ONLY burden for anyone at this point is for the person making the claim to support that claim.
If a person went around claiming "there is no god" without provocation, the more appropo response would be, "What do you mean by that? Man-made deities or deistic prime-movers of all kind possible conceptions? How do you know this?" Because a yes to those statements would imply that this person was claiming to know something that as far as we understand, they couldn't.
However, if we are in a disagreement because you claim there is a god, and I am skeptical, the burden of proof is on you.
Some of those that argue there is no God.
"Everything" is an all-encompassing word.
Not quite, you're equivocating again. When I say "I own everything in this room" I do not mean the air, the particles, US soil, the people I'm talking to, etc... The use of "everything" requires context.
If you've ever heard someone say "everything was created @ the big bang" they meant the atoms/dark matter that eventually formed the galaxies, they did not mean that the laws of physics are a creative force that determine the future of said universe. In regard to the physical laws, they were set, not created, @ the big bang and if they were set otherwise we wouldn't be here.
Beats me. Doesnt change the fact that if you believe that -everything- is created by the laws of physics, then you are forced to agree with the idea there is no such thing as free will as --everything-- is already set in stone -- and so, to then deliberatly and willfully think that you -do- have free will is necessarily self-delusional.
So who are you arguing against then? Who has accepted your straw-man as their position that EVERYTHING is "created" by the laws of physics?
I believe everything (matter and space-time) began @ the big bang, and behaves according to the laws of physics.
If not the laws of physics, then what?
The thought I have are CREATED in my head though volition, without a god at the source of this universe or determinism setting the @ the big bang.
To regard "everything" as a creation is a misnomer, to regard it as all encompassing is an equivocation; "Everything" requires context. Do you want me to explain how the galaxy we evolved in formed according to the laws of physics?
If you want to argue that this position is false, that's fine, but you'll need to then tell that to those who DO believe that everything is created by the laws of physics.
I don't "need" to do anything, thats what it means to have free-will. Who are these people you allege make this claim?
Think of an infinite billiard table, with a huge number of balls.
As soon as the cue breaks contact with the cue ball, the end position of every one of the other balls is pre-determined.
Scale up as necessary.
:yawn: I understand determinism, I also understand it to be tripe. We are not mindless billiard balls. Man is a being of volitional consciousness.
No. You didn't. Those impulses are all governed by the laws of physics, and controlled by same. The conditions that existed at the moment of the firing of the impulse that then created said impulse are there not because of anything you did, but because of a huge number of interactions all set in place by the laws as they goverened the results from the initial pulse of the big bang.
I thought you regarded that argument as false, and not your own?
There is no choice, as choice creates something that is NOT created by the laws of physics, which is not possible if -everything- is created by the laws of physics.
You're confused again... There is choice, there is free will, man is a being of volitional consciousness, thought is not an automatic process, the connections of logic are not reached by instinct.
An Atheist states, without provocation: There is no God. There is no proposal to the contrary, implied or explicit, there is only his statement
Is this some kind of hypothetical straw-man?
That is not inherently the atheist position, technically speaking a-theist means without belief. I for one do not believe in any god.
The ONLY burden for anyone at this point is for the person making the claim to support that claim.
If a person went around claiming "there is no god" without provocation, the more appropo response would be, "What do you mean by that? Man-made deities or deistic prime-movers of all kind possible conceptions? How do you know this?"
Because a yes to those statements would imply that this person was claiming to know something that as far as we understand, they couldn't.
Some of those that argue there is no God.
"Everything" is an all-encompassing word.
Not quite, you're equivocating again. When I say "I own everything in this room" I do not mean the air, the particles, US soil, the people I'm talking to, etc...
If you've ever heard someone say "everything was created @ the big bang" they meant the atoms/dark matter that eventually formed the galaxies. In regard to the physical laws, they were set, not created, @ the big bang and if they were set otherwise we wouldn't be here.
Beats me. Doesnt change the fact that if you believe that -everything- is created by the laws of physics, then you are forced to agree with the idea there is no such thing as free will as --everything-- is already set in stone -- and so, to then deliberatly and willfully think that you -do- have free will is necessarily self-delusional.
So who are you arguing against then? Who has accepted your straw-man as their position that EVERYTHING is "created" by the laws of physics?
I believe everything (matter and space-time) began @ the big bang, and behaves according to the laws of physics.
If not the laws of physics, then what?
The thought I have are CREATED in my head though volition, without a god at the source of this universe or determinism setting the @ the big bang.
To regard "everything" as a creation is a misnomer, to regard it as all encompassing is an equivocation; "Everything" requires context. Do you want me to explain how the galaxy we evolved in formed according to the laws of physics?
If you want to argue that this position is false, that's fine, but you'll need to then tell that to those who DO believe that everything is created by the laws of physics.
I don't "need" to do anything, thats what it means to have free-will. Who are these people you allege make this claim?
Think of an infinite billiard table, with a huge number of balls.
As soon as the cue breaks contact with the cue ball, the end position of every one of the other balls is pre-determined.
Scale up as necessary.
:yawn: I understand determinism, I also understand it to be tripe. We are not mindless billiard balls. Man is a being of volitional consciousness.
No. You didn't. Those impulses are all governed by the laws of physics, and controlled by same. The conditions that existed at the moment of the firing of the impulse that then created said impulse are there not because of anything you did, but because of a huge number of interactions all set in place by the laws as they goverened the results from the initial pulse of the big bang.
I thought you regarded that argument as false, and not your own?
Irrelevant to my point. Neurology is just chemistry, which is just physics.
To argue that you have some control over your neruology means that you, not the laws of physics, is creating something, an impossibility if -everything- is created by the laws of physics.
Chemistry is not just physics, our brain is a computer no matter what the circuits are made of, or how the data is sent. We are so much more than the sum of our parts, its sad to see such obvious cognitive dissonance combined with complete ignorance of the study of neurology.
I have control over my thoughts and body, I can prove it; Can you prove otherwise?
Lachean said:The laws of physics APPLY everywhere in the universe, but matter is not controlled by them.
Everything is governed, controlled and acts according to the laws of physics. Everything. No exception.
So this blatant misunderstanding of what the laws of physics do IS your position? You do not believe that we have free will? I see...
Sure they are. Up until the advent of man, its impossible to argue that -anything- was created by anything other than the laws of physics - specificlaly., how they govern the interaction between mass and energy.
The sun? Created by gravity. The earth? Same.
Sure it was - as I said, 'everything' is all-encompassing.
I am not at all sure how you arent klar on this:
If everything is created by the laws of physics, then there can be no free will as to choose to do something is to create something that was NOT ceated by the laws of physics.
"Everything" is NOT created by the laws of physics, anyone who claims this (which you seem to be) misunderstands all terms used.
Last edited: