Jeff Goldblum Challenge - Making Sense of Atheism

Author: PGA2.0

Posts

Total: 48
Topic's author
#1
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
As you have challenged belief in God I challenge you to make sense of your atheistic beliefs in regards to origins of 1) existence,  2) the universe, 3) life, 4) logic, 5) truth, 6) morality and 7) other things. Just like your challenge to believers in God, my challenge to you is to make sense of and show your belief is more reasonable than my belief. As for my belief, it is in the Christian God and no other. I do not defend other gods as justifiable.

So the questions begin. Questions 1 & 2 are similar so I will include both of them here.

1) What is your explanation of the origins of existence? Why does anything exist?  

2) How did the existence of this universe happen?

Is your worldview capable of making sense of these first two questions? 
#2
Jeff_Goldblum
Jeff_Goldblum's avatar
Debates: 13
Posts: 132
0
2
10
Jeff_Goldblum's avatar
Jeff_Goldblum
0
2
10
-->
@PGA2.0
At the outset, I'd like to draw a distinction between what you are doing with me and what I am doing with the interviewees in the 5 SE chats. I am politely exploring the epistemological bases for people's beliefs, whereas you seem much more intent on proving me wrong (i.e. "challenging" me). Street Epistemology is not a contest or a clash of beliefs. It's a respectful Q&A between interviewer and interviewee.

1) What is your explanation of the origins of existence? Why does anything exist?  
I don't know.

2) How did the existence of this universe happen?
I don't know.
Is your worldview capable of making sense of these first two questions? 
I believe so. Because I lack the evidence to answer these questions, I simply say "I don't know." I think beliefs should be substantiated by evidence. If there is no evidence to substantiate belief, there should be no belief.
Topic's author
#3
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@Jeff_Goldblum
At the outset, I'd like to draw a distinction between what you are doing with me and what I am doing with the interviewees in the 5 SE chats. I am politely exploring the epistemological bases for people's beliefs, whereas you seem much more intent on proving me wrong (i.e. "challenging" me). Street Epistemology is not a contest or a clash of beliefs. It's a respectful Q&A between interviewer and interviewee.
Okay, with one distinction you could argue that. To a point (the challenge of making sense of a worldview is something you are also asking the theist to explain) so overall I would respectfully disagree. I am being direct and bolder in my questions. You see, I am also trying to understand how you can make sense of your worldview (I question the possibility, ultimately of you doing it) - the fundamental or core nuts and bolts (beliefs) that hold your worldview together. There is usually a clash between two parties when an opposing belief is questioned because we tend to protect our underlying or core beliefs that everything else rests upon. Once our core beliefs are found wanting the options are either cling to an illogical faith/belief, find better reasons, or find a new one. So much rides on our core suppositions. I believe the deeper I dig into atheism the more frustrating the process will become for you in justifying your belief system. There is a subtle war going on between your worldview and mine (believer and unbeliever) in making sense of existence. We oppose and undermine each other subconsciously.  I understand that. 

1) What is your explanation of the origins of existence? Why does anything exist?  
I don't know.
Then you are ignorant (not knowing) and have not made sense of how and why we exist. 

In explaining existence as a Christian I appeal to a necessary Being of which neither you or I am. A necessary Being is Someone who can give reason and certainty. Without that Being, and that Beings revelation, we can only speculate. So, based on what you have given me on this point, I argue I have a more reasonable belief.

More questions.
1) a) Is it reasonable to believe that life and our existence come from non-life which would have to be your default if you deny a personal eternally existing God. Please explain.
1) b) Is it more reasonable to believe a self-existent, thus necessary being gives existence to other beings or is there a better explanation you can offer?

2) How did the existence of this universe happen?
I don't know.
Again, ignorance - no explanation. Nothing made sense of it.

The Christian worldview explains that the universe has a beginning. That corresponds to many variables from science that back up a beginning. The cause of the universe comes from a self-existing eternal Being, Someone outside the physical realm and time who has revealed Himself to humanity. There are various checks and balances that give the Bible reasonableness.   

Is your worldview capable of making sense of these first two questions? 
I believe so. Because I lack the evidence to answer these questions, I simply say "I don't know." I think beliefs should be substantiated by evidence. If there is no evidence to substantiate belief, there should be no belief.

"I don't know," tells me nothing about how or why the universe exists or if there is something behind its existence. The Christian worldview can offer evidence for its truth claims, a claimed revelation that is reasonable to believe because it would come from a reasoning and omniscient being who has left us the evidence. That is not only historical evidence but philosophical and logical evidence. There is a purpose to the universe from such a being (God created it for His glory and He created a being, the human, who can also enjoy and appreciate its grandeur and awesomeness). If the revelation is true (which again is reasonable to believe) we can make sense of the universe.

More points for my Christian worldview as being more reasonable!

So, more questions. 

2) a) With an atheist perspective, how do "I think beliefs" originate from the physical, non-conscious, random chance happenstance of events.
2) b) Is there an original "starting" cause that is sufficient for the universe, or is it an infinite regression of cause and effects?
2) c) If there is an original cause how did that happen? Self-creation is not reasonable for it implies that nothing created something.
2) d) i) If chance happenstance then why are the laws of nature sustainable and predictable and ii) why do we find reasons that we are able to put into mathematical principles in an indifferent universe? 

I believe and would be willing to offer substantiated evidence from the biblical standpoint as to its reasonableness.  That would be a detailed explanation. One of many pieces of evidence has to do with history and prophecy. Another is the internal consistency of the 66 different writings concerning the themes. A third would be the typology of most of the OT in reflecting Jesus Christ that is revealed in the NT in spiritual truths. Another would be the reasonableness of the biblical God in explanation morality. I would argue He is necessary for making sense of it.
#4
Jeff_Goldblum
Jeff_Goldblum's avatar
Debates: 13
Posts: 132
0
2
10
Jeff_Goldblum's avatar
Jeff_Goldblum
0
2
10
-->
@PGA2.0
If you'd like to have a debate, then send me a challenge after negotiating a resolution and pertinent definitions with me. I am not interested in this form of interrogation in a forum setting.
Topic's author
#5
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@Jeff_Goldblum
If you'd like to have a debate, then send me a challenge after negotiating a resolution and pertinent definitions with me. I am not interested in this form of interrogation in a forum setting.
Your challenge:

"If you believe in God, consider this an open invitation to participate in Street Epistemology" 

So the scrutiny you place upon the Christian or theist worldview in answering your questions you are not willing to reciprocate by answering questions about your worldview? IOW's, you can question us but we can't question you in holding you accountable for what you believe as reasonable. I was quite willing to discuss the two and find out how you answer these difficult questions to test your belief system as you are testing the theistic position. It appears to me to be a one-way street. You set up five threads in which you can question theists but are not willing to have the tables turned. IMO, this is a double-standard and it confirms to me to date that you have not been able to make sense of what you believe (i.e., "I don't know" to both Q 1 & 2). 

I'm in a debate right now and I have another pending, then I will think about setting one up with you, or you can do the same with me. I am willing to debate you. We can discuss the wording and content of debate if you like for a starter. That is something we can do right now. For instance, what would be the challenge heading? Here is a proposal:

Does Christianity Make Better Sense of Origins/Is It More Reasonable than Other Worldviews?

BOP shared. You have to provide a system of thought you believe is more reasonable. You also need to refute Christianity as being able to make sense of origins. That means we must both provide evidence or reasonable inference and back up our claims as logically as possible.
#6
Jeff_Goldblum
Jeff_Goldblum's avatar
Debates: 13
Posts: 132
0
2
10
Jeff_Goldblum's avatar
Jeff_Goldblum
0
2
10
-->
@PGA2.0
Proposed Title: Christianity vs. Empiricism: Making Sense of Reality's Origin

Proposed Resolution: Christianity is a superior worldview for making sense of the origin of reality.

BoP: Shared. Pro defends Christianity while Con proposes an alternative worldview (empiricism).
Topic's author
#7
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@Jeff_Goldblum
Proposed Title: Christianity vs. Empiricism: Making Sense of Reality's Origin
Realities origin or just origins? We are speaking of a number of firsts along the way if you believe the universe had a beginning. Otherwise, the origin of the universe does not apply.

Proposed Resolution: Christianity is a superior worldview for making sense of the origin of reality.
Or: Christianity is more reasonable in making sense of origins. 

BoP: Shared. Pro defends Christianity while Con proposes an alternative worldview (empiricism).

Agreed. Is empiricism the worldview you choose to defend?
#8
Jeff_Goldblum
Jeff_Goldblum's avatar
Debates: 13
Posts: 132
0
2
10
Jeff_Goldblum's avatar
Jeff_Goldblum
0
2
10
-->
@PGA2.0
Realities origin or just origins?
Whichever you prefer.
Or: Christianity is more reasonable in making sense of origins. 
Sure.

Is empiricism the worldview you choose to defend?
Yep.
#9
BrotherDThomas
BrotherDThomas's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,140
3
3
7
BrotherDThomas's avatar
BrotherDThomas
3
3
7
-->
@Jeff_Goldblum


.
Jeff_Goldblum,

Be prepared that more than likely PGA2.0 will run away from any logical deductions that you may bring forth, whereas he RAN AWAY from our godly discussion post haste with some of the lamest excuses that I have ever seen.  Furthermore, PGA2.0 is an ungodly "Preterist," one of many DIVISIONS of the Christian faith, which speaks volumes on the way he conducts himself in the name of Satan by his Preterist faith rewriting the Bible in a truly ungodly way!


.



Topic's author
#10
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@Jeff_Goldblum
-->@PGA2.0
Realities origin or just origins?
Whichever you prefer.
Or: Christianity is more reasonable in making sense of origins. 
Sure.

Is empiricism the worldview you choose to defend?
Yep.

Okay, I'll keep that in mind. I would be willing to start the debate shortly once I complete an outside job for a customer and even before this current debate I'm engaged in is finished if you agree to a two-week time frame for each round. I expect to get the green light to do the job within a week.

I also want between 12,000 to 15,000 characters. Are you okay with those two requests?  

PS. I would be aware and wary of the post above this one in which there is nothing constructive or of substance offered, only smearing and an ad-hominem attack of my character. 
#11
BrotherDThomas
BrotherDThomas's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,140
3
3
7
BrotherDThomas's avatar
BrotherDThomas
3
3
7
-->
@PGA2.0


.
PGA2.0,

YOUR QUOTE: "PS. I would be aware and wary of the post above this one in which there is nothing constructive or of substance offered, only smearing and an ad-hominem attack of my character."

Under the guise of you being a Hell Bound "PRETERIST," it is only godly in nature to smear your Satanic faith into oblivion!  Do you actually think that Jesus would approve of your Satanic Bible rewrites that show Him to have already returned with His 2nd Coming in the year of 70AD?! NOT!  

As it was easily shown by me, before you RAN AWAY, the ramifications of this thinking causes so much confusion and contradicting propositions within the Bible, that if believed, you might as well throw the entire Bible away!

Do you smell sulfur yet? You will eventually.


. 


#12
Jeff_Goldblum
Jeff_Goldblum's avatar
Debates: 13
Posts: 132
0
2
10
Jeff_Goldblum's avatar
Jeff_Goldblum
0
2
10
-->
@BrotherDThomas
Thanks for the tip
#13
BrotherDThomas
BrotherDThomas's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,140
3
3
7
BrotherDThomas's avatar
BrotherDThomas
3
3
7
-->
@Jeff_Goldblum



Jeff_Goldblum,

Anytime, where Jesus and I will not condone any Ne'er-do-well PGA2.0 in promoting their Satanic DIVISION of Preterism  to trample over His TRUE inspired words that He stated in the beginning!  

This is what a Hell Bound Preterist Bible should look like subsequent to their ungodly and comical rewrites: https://johnhensondotnet.files.wordpress.com/2016/09/biblewithcutout.png?w=396
#14
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@BrotherDThomas
No one runs away Dee Dee. No one wants to talk to you because you're like an autistic bot. All your posts are the same, juvinile. Have you not noticed that in most threads no one pays any attention to your loony posts?
#15
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@PGA2.0
So the scrutiny you place upon the Christian or theist worldview in answering your questions you are not willing to reciprocate by answering questions about your worldview? IOW's, you can question us but we can't question you in holding you accountable for what you believe as reasonable. I was quite willing to discuss the two and find out how you answer these difficult questions to test your belief system as you are testing the theistic position. It appears to me to be a one-way street. You set up five threads in which you can question theists but are not willing to have the tables turned. IMO, this is a double-standard and it confirms to me to date that you have not been able to make sense of what you believe 
Is a formal debate even necessary anymore?

Good job as always PGA.
Topic's author
#16
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@ethang5
I'm enjoying the interview concept. It is too bad Jeff never followed through on the challenge I issued. He does not see what he did in issuing an invitation to religious believers as the same thing I am doing in challenging his worldview. So the debate is the next stage. It will be interesting to see how empiricism, devoid of being, is more reasonable than a Creator.
#17
BrotherDThomas
BrotherDThomas's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,140
3
3
7
BrotherDThomas's avatar
BrotherDThomas
3
3
7
-->
@ethang5



ethang5,

YOUR ONE OF MANY LAME POSTS, AGAIN:  "No one runs away Dee Dee. No one wants to talk to you because you're like an autistic bot. All your posts are the same, juvinile. Have you not noticed that in most threads no one pays any attention to your loony posts?"

Simply put, that even you can understand, is the FACT that the ones that allegedly do not want to talk to me, ARE PSEUDO-CHRISTIANS RUNNING AWAY LIKE YOU that cannot address my refutations to their bible ignorance!

I suggest that you read this post to you listed below, and afterwards, call Amazon to get a weekly delivery of DEPENDS, because where I will be taking you, you are going to need every box, and more!  https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/4309-they-want-to-discuss-anything-but-the-bible?page=1&post_number=12

.


.



#18
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
It will be interesting to see how empiricism, devoid of being, is more reasonable than a Creator.
It isn't more reasonable. It cannot be, but as the bible says...

Rom 1:20 - For since the creation of the world [God's] invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse,

Rom 1:21 - because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened.

Rom 1:22 - Professing to be wise, they became fools,

Rom 1:24 - Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves,

Rom 1:26 - For this reason God gave them up to vile passions.

Rom 1:28 - And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting;

This is why they argue, because they do not like to retain God in their knowledge. But we will proclaim Him. We will keep Him front and center. It will annoy and incite them, but we will forever honor and glorify the great King who gave Himself for us, and saved us when we were just sinners.

We love Him, because He first loved us.
#19
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,060
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@ethang5
As if an omniscient creator would care about all that human B.S.


Mantra for today.....We've created many gods in our minds, but none as yet in reality.


#20
Envisage
Envisage's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 48
0
0
2
Envisage's avatar
Envisage
0
0
2
-->
@PGA2.0
Lemme try.

Origins of:

1) existence
The sentence of "origin of existence" makes no sense. Something either exists or it doesn't.

2) The universe
Don't know. Can freely speculate, but don't know.

3) life
Don't know. Can freely speculate, but don't know.

 4) logic
Humans developed it.

5) truth
The sentence of "The origin of truth" makes no sense. either something is true or it is not.

6) morality
Nihilism works fine as  a meta ethical theory. Describing human behaviours and what human behaviours people would generally most prefer I don't categorise as morality. If you do though then I encourage you to read "Sapiens: A brief history or humankind" for some good speculation.

 7) other things
Can't be assed.
#21
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@zedvictor4
As if an omniscient creator would care about all that human B.S.
He does. He said so Himself, and no one is more surprised than Christians are. As the bible itself asks, "What is man, that you are mindful of him?"

Mantra for today.....We've created many gods in our minds, but none as yet in reality.
Making a mantra doesn't make it truth. You can keep pretending your "mantra" is truth, but as for us Christians, we will stick with the more rational, the more dependable, "I am the Way, the TRUTH, and the Life..." spoken by the very real King of Glory. His Royal Highness, King Jesus Christ.

Don't be mad, some people are reality challenged.
#22
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@ethang5
Zedvictor has become a compilation of conditioned ideas and thoughts, truth is just an abstract concept that is unable to penetrate his pile of internal data and objectivity is outside his scope of understanding. Why he visits a religion forum to repeat his empty mantras then is a mystery. 
Topic's author
#23
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@ethang5
It will be interesting to see how empiricism, devoid of being, is more reasonable than a Creator.
It isn't more reasonable. It cannot be, but as the bible says...

Rom 1:20 - For since the creation of the world [God's] invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse,

Rom 1:21 - because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened.

Rom 1:22 - Professing to be wise, they became fools,

Rom 1:24 - Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves,

Rom 1:26 - For this reason God gave them up to vile passions.

Rom 1:28 - And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting;

This is why they argue, because they do not like to retain God in their knowledge. But we will proclaim Him. We will keep Him front and center. It will annoy and incite them, but we will forever honor and glorify the great King who gave Himself for us, and saved us when we were just sinners.
I agree. 


We love Him, because He first loved us.


Topic's author
#24
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@Envisage
Lemme try.

Origins of:

1) existence
The sentence of "origin of existence" makes no sense. Something either exists or it doesn't.
How things come to be then. 

2) The universe
Don't know. Can freely speculate, but don't know.
If you don't know then what is more reasonable to believe? What view is able to make sense of existence. What view is more reasonable in making sense of the universe?

3) life
Don't know. Can freely speculate, but don't know.
The what is more reasonable to believe. Explain what you believe and let's take a look at the reasonableness.

 4) logic
Humans developed it.
So, without human beings, there would be no such thing? Now, logic is not dependent upon you but it is dependent upon thinking being. Without God (i.e., materialism or empiricism) how does something that is non-living, non-conscious, develop into something that is and is this more reasonable to believe than logic comes from an eternal necessary Being? 

5) truth
The sentence of "The origin of truth" makes no sense. either something is true or it is not.
Okay. Is truth mind-dependent? Does truth depend on being or is there such a thing as truth without "being" to perceive it? If truth has its origins from beings you still need to jump the hurdle and develop how conscious beings come from physical matter devoid of consciousness. If truth is not an abstract mindful process then it cannot be known or explained. 

And when I speak of truth, I speak of the truth of origins. How do you know your view of origins is what corresponds to reality unless a necessary mindful Being has revealed origins? 

6) morality
Nihilism works fine as  a meta ethical theory. Describing human behaviours and what human behaviours people would generally most prefer I don't categorise as morality. If you do though then I encourage you to read "Sapiens: A brief history or humankind" for some good speculation.
Develop that nihilistic thought. What do you mean? 

Neither do I classify behaviour as morality for the following reasons: How does an 'ought' come from an 'is.' A behaviour is. It is a description of something taking place. A preference is a "like," a personal taste. I like ice-cream. Does that mean you SHOULD like ice-cream too? 

 7) other things
Can't be assed.


#25
BrotherDThomas
BrotherDThomas's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,140
3
3
7
BrotherDThomas's avatar
BrotherDThomas
3
3
7
-->
@ethang5


.
ethang5,

YOUR VERY REVEALING QUOTE OF ADMITTANCE: "Don't be mad, some people are reality challenged."

Yes, some people are in fact reality challenged, and how wonderful of you admitting that you are reality challenged as well!  Praise Jesus for your enlightenment , whereas you are the most "Reality Challenged" pseudo-christian on DEBATEART Religion Forum!   This is shown by one mere fact of many, that reality has Jesus and I Bible Slapping you Silly®️ in so many threads that I have lost count! LOL   

Listen up, we realize that you have to remain silent upon Jesus and I making you the Bible fool that you are, and more so than not, you will have to whine and tattletail to a moderator like so many other pseudo-christians have done to ask me to stop showing you to be totally inept relating to Bible principles. You realize that you cannot in any way or form engage me upon this blatant fact, other than to be silent, and RUN AWAY! LOL 


Ethang5, could you at least tell your equally Bible ignorant pseudo-christians in what running shoes you wear so they too can make a quick exit to reality within the scriptures like you do ad infinitum? You owe it to them, don't you think? Yes, you do.  Satan is so proud of you, praise!


NEXT?

.
#26
BrotherDThomas
BrotherDThomas's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,140
3
3
7
BrotherDThomas's avatar
BrotherDThomas
3
3
7
-->
@zedvictor4


.
zedvictor4,

I am just posting to you regarding the "Posse" members within this thread that you are dealing with, that for the most part we agree upon.

ETHANG:  Just a heads up if you haven't already realized this fact, Ethang5 is a Burger King Christian,®️ where he wants the Bible his way, instead of it being Jesus' way.  This is one of many reasons that ol' Ethang5 is the most Bible ignorant pseudo-christian upon this forum as I have shown repeatably, and he will hold this title even when banned, because absolutely no one can take this title away from him!

ETRNLVW; Notice in post #22, EtrnlVw operates from the sidelines, where he does not engage you personally, but safely speaks about you to the Bible fool ethang5. This is because he is too scared to post to you outright because he is biblically challenged as well.  

PGA2.0: Subjectively, this member is not to be recognized in any way whatsoever in any Religious Forum where Christianity is discussed, because he is of the Satanic Preterist faith, where they can actually promote that Jesus' 2nd coming has already happened in AD70!  I know, quit laughing! LOL!  How can anyone knowing he is a Preterist even start to engage him, because you would be laughing full time regarding his comical faith!  The Bible ramifications are endless when swallowing such a Satanic belief!

JEFF GOLDBLUM: He is obviously saving the Preterist PGA2.0 in any further embarrassment because of his ungodly faith, which is truly commendable to say the least! 


Pseudo-christians, ya gotta love em, they are so hypocritical to Jesus' true words is the reason Jesus has sent me here to easily correct their Satanic ways, praise!


.

#27
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@EtrnlVw
...penetrate his pile of internal data...
Lol! I could have sworn it was a pile of something else!

Funny.
#28
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@BrotherDThomas
Next?
You're next Dee Dee. Landover Baptist is front of the line.

Babble about slapping and running again, it was so funny the 100th time you posted it.

The hilarity is, you actually think you're mocking Christians! Lol.

The one shtick wonder. 

Satan is so proud of you, praise!
He must hate you with your holy prostitutes. Lol.
#29
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,060
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@ethang5
You can keep pretending your mantra is truth.
Exactly what I was thinking about you...But don't be mad...Some people are reality challenged.

Works both ways....that's the reality.


#30
Envisage
Envisage's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 48
0
0
2
Envisage's avatar
Envisage
0
0
2
-->
@PGA2.0
Lemme try.

Origins of:

1) existence
The sentence of "origin of existence" makes no sense. Something either exists or it doesn't.
How things come to be then. 
Again I have problems with the term "come to be".

I imagine this question makes perfect sense in your head, either that or you are not articulating your thoughts very accurately. 

If your question is "How have all things that exist have come to exist as they are today?", that question makes sense, and I can try and answer it.

if your question is "How/why does anything exists at all?" that that question also makes sense, and again I can try and answer it.

But if your question "what is the origin of existence?" then that is incoherent to me, I do not understand what you are trying to ask, since it seems to me you ae treating "existence" as a type of  "thing" that can be talked about in the same way as a statue, or a tree.

If you want me to talk past you than I can try in futility to answer the question in its original form and fail as anyone else here has tried to.

2) The universe
Don't know. Can freely speculate, but don't know.
If you don't know then what is more reasonable to believe? What view is able to make sense of existence. What view is more reasonable in making sense of the universe?
Define "view".

I assume you mean "the view with a god, or the view without a god" and I am happy to answer that if that if what you are asking.

3) life
Don't know. Can freely speculate, but don't know.
The what is more reasonable to believe. Explain what you believe and let's take a look at the reasonableness.

I already stated I believe I don't know. Do you want to rephrase your question more explicitly (I assume it requires similar phrasing to=== Q2) so I can answer it more to your satisfaction?

Note that I would normally be more charitable in discussions and not request rephrasing, but I assume we have very different terminology, culture and viewpoints, and it would all too easy for me to say something that doesn't answer the question as you envisioned it in your head.

 4) logic
Humans developed it.
So, without human beings, there would be no such thing?
Note that when I speak of logic, I think of formal axiomatic logical systems, such as those used in mathematics, or rules of inference etc.

I see no reason why other species or aliens couldn't develop logic themselves.

I assume your question is better rephrased as:
"So without beings to reason, there would be no such thing as logic?"

To which I answer "Yes". Since logic doesn't exist as a thing outside of the mind.


Now, logic is not dependent upon you but it is dependent upon thinking being. Without God (i.e., materialism or empiricism) how does something that is non-living, non-conscious, develop into something that is and is this more reasonable to believe than logic comes from an eternal necessary Being? 
You do realise that logic systems with completely different axioms to those we commonly use in math etc. can and have been developed that have zero application or relevance to reality as we experience it right? You can even have entire mathematical systems that are inconsistent. The systems and axioms are wholly dependent on thinking beings.

5) truth
The sentence of "The origin of truth" makes no sense. either something is true or it is not.
Okay. Is truth mind-dependent? Does truth depend on being or is there such a thing as truth without "being" to perceive it? If truth has its origins from beings you still need to jump the hurdle and develop how conscious beings come from physical matter devoid of consciousness. If truth is not an abstract mindful process then it cannot be known or explained. 

And when I speak of truth, I speak of the truth of origins. How do you know your view of origins is what corresponds to reality unless a necessary mindful Being has revealed origins? 
This falls into the same category of thing as Q4. So redress these arguments to that.

Truth falls under epistemology, and a lot of that will depend on your view of logic systems, which define within themselves "true" and "false". To state there is "truth" outside of imaged systems such as logic makes zero sense to me, thus #4 should be addressed first.

6) morality
Nihilism works fine as  a meta ethical theory. Describing human behaviours and what human behaviours people would generally most prefer I don't categorise as morality. If you do though then I encourage you to read "Sapiens: A brief history or humankind" for some good speculation.
Develop that nihilistic thought. What do you mean? 
There is no such thing as inherent right or wrong on any level. They are all imagined orders/realities.


Neither do I classify behaviour as morality for the following reasons: How does an 'ought' come from an 'is.' A behaviour is. It is a description of something taking place. A preference is a "like," a personal taste. I like ice-cream. Does that mean you SHOULD like ice-cream too? 

"Ought" is defined within whatever imagined order you subscribe to. I do not subscribe to any, so asking me how "ought" comes from an "is" makes no sense, since "ought" makes no sense outside of an imagined order "such as a religious order, but certainly not exclusive to a religious order".