- 13 Jun 2013 11:37
#14253652
Where did I say that at all? I said I don't like arguing with people with strong faith--but I said nothing about wanting to change their minds. It's just not very interesting.
So you and Suska are the only two people on the religion forum? I've never been able to have a reasonable discussion with Suska, so I don't consider that much of a measure of anything. AFAICT, you two are the only ones who have even tried to make counter-arguments... and your argument basically descended into an extremely off-base attack on my intentions or something.
If that's how you respond to people with critiques of logical arguments, it's small wonder that so few people visit this sub-forum.
I repeatedly--and at length--noted that there is nothing scientific or logical about faith. Except perhaps, as you note, an example to study for psychiatrists.
Fine, I will not respond to any more of your posts. Easy enough solution.
And I'm generally pretty dismissive of it, so there wouldn't be much point.
Because the nature of god is defined by the argument. That's the entire purpose of the first cause argument! If you want to define god as something else, you've already dismissed the first cause argument for that reason alone. If god is defined as something more or less than "the first cause of the universe," then the entire point of the argument is lost.
And you're right. I do generally refuse to debate the nature of nonexistent things--anyone can make up anything they want about them, so there's nothing really to discuss.
I jumped into this argument primarily because these sorts of ephemeral nonsense are excluded in logical arguments about god because by necessity they have to actually define what they mean by god. In this case, the only definition of god I was even discussing was the definition posed by the original post.
Drlee wrote:You are not going to get away with some bullshit assertion that you want to talk about first cause in the religion forum and then get angry when the talk turns to faith If you want to do that I suggest you do not post in the religion forum. We also are not going to let you get away with some nonsense about not wanting to change religious people's minds and then go on to say, in the same voluminous post that you DO intend to change their minds.
Where did I say that at all? I said I don't like arguing with people with strong faith--but I said nothing about wanting to change their minds. It's just not very interesting.
Much of your frustration seems to come from the fact that the religious people on this forum reject your premise as irrelevant and refuse to rise to your bait. Again. Pity.
So you and Suska are the only two people on the religion forum? I've never been able to have a reasonable discussion with Suska, so I don't consider that much of a measure of anything. AFAICT, you two are the only ones who have even tried to make counter-arguments... and your argument basically descended into an extremely off-base attack on my intentions or something.
If that's how you respond to people with critiques of logical arguments, it's small wonder that so few people visit this sub-forum.
Your argument can be challenged in the religion forum because you obviously not only don't understand religious faith in a conceptual sense not to mention a practical one, you also insist on asserting that there is some scientific aspect to faith.
I repeatedly--and at length--noted that there is nothing scientific or logical about faith. Except perhaps, as you note, an example to study for psychiatrists.
You are free to post in any of the scientific forums and I will refrain from commenting there. In this thread you have no position to offer me that I might wish to debate with you. I took great pains to explain that to you and you got angry. Again. That is a pity.
Fine, I will not respond to any more of your posts. Easy enough solution.
If you want to discuss science with me I am happy to do that as I previously said. I will do that in any appropriate forum. I will prefer to stick to my own fields of 'expertise' which I am sad to say does not include theoretical physics, cosmology or in the case of your proposed argument 'cosmogony' I believe. But if you want to talk about scientific stuff I am ready to go at it with you on epidemiology and stuff like that. I got a load of that stuff.
And I'm generally pretty dismissive of it, so there wouldn't be much point.
By the way you are absolutely correct. Someone5 tries to forward an argument about "God" but refuses to engage in a discussion of His nature or even seek to define what He is to believers.
Because the nature of god is defined by the argument. That's the entire purpose of the first cause argument! If you want to define god as something else, you've already dismissed the first cause argument for that reason alone. If god is defined as something more or less than "the first cause of the universe," then the entire point of the argument is lost.
And you're right. I do generally refuse to debate the nature of nonexistent things--anyone can make up anything they want about them, so there's nothing really to discuss.
He seems to want to argue with what he considers little more than did he say fairytale?
I jumped into this argument primarily because these sorts of ephemeral nonsense are excluded in logical arguments about god because by necessity they have to actually define what they mean by god. In this case, the only definition of god I was even discussing was the definition posed by the original post.
+1
- By skinster
- By FiveofSwords