the real issue

Originally posted by knightmeister
Not neccessarily , I can know the sun exists without having to know everything but in order to catagorically exclude another exact replica of our sun existing I would have to know everything. It's much easier to know anything in the positive than it is to catagorically exclude things because to say something can't exist one must push the realms of one's knowledge to edge of all knowledge.

But if the thing you are trying to determine the existence of is everywhere and one of its observable properties are known then determining its non-existence only requires the examination of one small place - not infinite knowledge.
The flaw in jammers claim is that he is defining God as "anything". The moment you assign a specific observable property to your definition of God then knowledge of everything is no-longer required. For example, if God is hiding out on Pluto then I can probably not determine that. But if not, then I do not require knowledge of Pluto to know that God does not exist. Hence either God is hiding out on Pluto or jammers claim is false.

Originally posted by knightmeister
Now , you may disagree with my logic as much as I disagree with yours but if you then go on to claim that yours is "actual" logic then you are just saying you are right because you are right. It is pretty obvious from these posts that what seems logical to one person is illogical to another so your claim of "actual" logic is subjective.

Logic is not subjective. 2+2 will always be 4. Being able to see and understand the logic is what is subjective. The problem is that dj2beker claims that his claims are logical. But he resorts to outright lies to defend them. You similarly made some pretty ridiculous statements in defense of your 'logic' which made me think that even you did not believe it was logical but had other reasons for trying to prove it.

I felt that your argument was pretty illogical because it contradicted one of the basic laws of logic , namely , A is either A or not A. My argument was based on the idea that existence is either finite or it isn't and I felt you were trying to say that it could be both , which to me is illogical.
I never said existence could be both. (in a given dimension).

Originally posted by twhitehead
Logic is not subjective. 2+2 will always be 4. Being able to see and understand the logic is what is subjective. The problem is that dj2beker claims that his claims are logical. But he resorts to outright lies to defend them. You similarly made some pretty ridiculous statements in defense of your 'logic' which made me think that even you did not believe i ...[text shortened]... which to me is illogical.
I never said existence could be both. (in a given dimension).[/b]

You similarly made some pretty ridiculous statements in defense of your 'logic' WHITEY

And this is where the subjective bit comes in .... to you they are ridiculous and I accept that. My claims may seem ridiculous to you (probably just as ridiculous as your circle of time appears to me)..but what does that prove..just that one man's logic is another man's insanity. You have to show HOW my claims are ridiculous not just state it. This is what I was trying to do with your circle of time and it seemed pretty ridiculous to me that you seemed to think a circle of time would not repeat or create a neccessary time/causality paradox ..but hey...what do I know.

Originally posted by knightmeister
And this is where the subjective bit comes in .... to you they are ridiculous and I accept that. My claims may seem ridiculous to you (probably just as ridiculous as your circle of time appears to me)..but what does that prove..just that one man's logic is another man's insanity. You have to show HOW my claims are ridiculous not just state it. This is ...[text shortened]... ime would not repeat or create a neccessary time/causality paradox ..but hey...what do I know.

Is the centre of a circle the beginning of a circle? Do you actually believe that. Do you think that such a claim is sensible or ridiculous? I am really interested, because in the case of dj2becker, it is obvious that he is just a lier who makes things up as he goes along, but I am not so sure about you.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Is the centre of a circle the beginning of a circle? Do you actually believe that. Do you think that such a claim is sensible or ridiculous? I am really interested, because in the case of dj2becker, it is obvious that he is just a lier who makes things up as he goes along, but I am not so sure about you.

I assure you I am not a liar nor given to disingenuous debating. If you are right I will say so.

I do not think a circle of time would have a centre . I think a sphere may have a centre because a sphere is 3 dimensional. My understanding was that in your circle of time that time would flow around the line/perimeter of the circle. I don't remember you saying anything about the centre. If you did then we have been at cross purposes all along. My thoughts on a circle of time being paradoxical was that the end of the timeline would have to meet the beginning to form the circle , and as such would have to influence the beginning via causality. If the 20th century timeline was bent round into a circle of time then what happens in 1999 would have an influence on what happens in 1900 and would be a time paradox because 1999 would change also as a result. This was always my problem with a circle of time. Einstein said time travel backwards was not possible for this reason presumably.

Originally posted by knightmeister
I assure you I am not a liar nor given to disingenuous debating. If you are right I will say so.

I do not think a circle of time would have a centre . I think a sphere may have a centre because a sphere is 3 dimensional. My understanding was that in your circle of time that time would flow around the line/perimeter of the circle. I don't remember y ...[text shortened]... ircle of time. Einstein said time travel backwards was not possible for this reason presumably.

I have not managed to find the exact post I was referring to. I did read quite a lot of the Void of Nothing thread looking for it. I will concede that you appear to believe what you are saying unlike dj2becker who simply makes things up as he goes along and avoids difficult questions or attempts to change the meaning of words in mid sentence to try and disguise his mistakes.
The actual timeline discussion I think is best kept in its appropriate thread so I will not answer your post here.
Now since we more or less agree that it is wrong to lump all theists in one basket, would you also agree that your initial post in this thread was an attempt to lump all atheists in one basket which is similarly wrong?

Originally posted by knightmeister
You similarly made some pretty ridiculous statements in defense of your 'logic' WHITEY

And this is where the subjective bit comes in .... to you they are ridiculous and I accept that. My claims may seem ridiculous to you (probably just as ridiculous as your circle of time appears to me)..but what does that prove..just that one man's logic is another ...[text shortened]... e would not repeat or create a neccessary time/causality paradox ..but hey...what do I know.

"And this is where the subjective bit comes in .... to you they are ridiculous and I accept that."

So, if you realise that your ideas are objectively ridiculous, and you also admit that they cannot be objectively proven, then why the hell do you believe in them????

Originally posted by twhitehead
I have not managed to find the exact post I was referring to. I did read quite a lot of the Void of Nothing thread looking for it. I will concede that you appear to believe what you are saying unlike dj2becker who simply makes things up as he goes along and avoids difficult questions or attempts to change the meaning of words in mid sentence to try and di ...[text shortened]... post in this thread was an attempt to lump all atheists in one basket which is similarly wrong?

I deliberately used phrases like many in order to avoid putting all of them into the basket , but it's possibly unfair nevertheless. I am tainted by the fact that the most outspoken Atheists often seem to be full of vitriole and have big chips on their shoulders. The emotion behind the argument is interesting. What are they so angry about? I mean most of them don't believe in free will and believe we are determined by nature , so a more rational response would be to be angry with nature for having created religion in the first place. Logically it's not the Theists fault for being "idiots" they cannot be to blame because we are not free.

Originally posted by howardgee
"And this is where the subjective bit comes in .... to you they are ridiculous and I accept that."

So, if you realise that your ideas are objectively ridiculous, and you also admit that they cannot be objectively proven, then why the hell do you believe in them????

Dooh! I didn't admit they were objectively ridiculous , I just said that they might appear ridiculous to him. Read more carefully.

I believe it because to me it seems rational and likely regardless of how ridiculous it seems to you. I know that you have not encountered what I have encountered so I don't expect it to make sense to you. You interpret the universe in one way , I in another. We know for a fact that men have disagreed wildly over the same evidence (ref recent debate over global warming) for centuries. Are you so naive as to think that it's not possible for one man's sanity to be another man's madness? Your position is rational to you , mine is to me...but for some reason you feel the need to discredit the genuiness of my position. For the record your position is also rational to me , in your shoes I would (and once did) believe what you believe. But I didn't know what I know now. You are probabaly going to ask me what I now know....but I don't think you are ready to hear it in good faith.

Originally posted by knightmeister
I mean most of them don't believe in free will and believe we are determined by nature, so a more rational response would be to be angry with nature for having created religion in the first place. Logically it's not the Theists fault for being "idiots" they cannot be to blame because we are not free.

Are you sure about that? I don't think I have heard a single atheist claim that he does not have free will. Of course that does depend on your definition of free will.
I cant speak for other atheists but reasons why I might get angry in a debate include:
The natural tendency to get angry when someone doesn't agree with you.
The natural tendency to get angry when someone is being dishonest in his debating ie ignoring some questions, lying etc etc.
The natural tendency to get angry when someone who obviously doesn't have a clue in the subject matter but professes to be an expert.
The natural tendency to get angry when insulted.
However I don't actually get angry very often.

One other major reason why I get annoyed at theists is because they appear (from my point of view) to be holding on to a nonsensical concept for no valid reason other than willful self delusion due to a false belief that it is beneficial to them. On top of that they attempt to deny and distort facts and promote a form of pseudoscience in order to avoid facing the fact that their beliefs are wrong.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Are you sure about that? I don't think I have heard a single atheist claim that he does not have free will. Of course that does depend on your definition of free will.
I cant speak for other atheists but reasons why I might get angry in a debate include:
The natural tendency to get angry when someone doesn't agree with you.
The natural tendency to get ...[text shortened]... mote a form of pseudoscience in order to avoid facing the fact that their beliefs are wrong.

Do you believe in free will or do you believe that if we had a computer big enough we could explain or predict all human actions via natural laws?

I think you will find that most Atheists don't believe in free will intellectually but recognise that it is impossible to live by this belief because that would be to deny personal responsibility. This is what makes it disingenuous because the belief is out of step with the reality of everyday life. They personally believe in free will for themselves but argue against it intellectually with theists around.

A good example of believing something intellectually but the knowing something else experientially.

Originally posted by knightmeister
Do you believe in free will or do you believe that if we had a computer big enough we could explain or predict all human actions via natural laws?

I think we can already explain most human actions and have found no evidence that they are not entirely dependent on natural laws.
Prediction is another matter. In fact the combination of chaos theory and the uncertainty principle guarantees that you cannot predict the future beyond a certain accuracy especially with chaotic systems like the weather or the human mind.


I think you will find that most Atheists don't believe in free will intellectually but recognise that it is impossible to live by this belief because that would be to deny personal responsibility.
Please define free will before you proceed. Please check your statistics before you make claims about 'most atheists'. I personally don't remember any atheist making a claim that he had no free will.

This is what makes it disingenuous because the belief is out of step with the reality of everyday life. They personally believe in free will for themselves but argue against it intellectually with theists around.

A good example of believing something intellectually but the knowing something else experientially.
You need to sit back and do some serious thinking before trying to make such claims.

Its starting to look like your S from N threads where you insisted that all your opponents believe in S from N but could not actually find a single person who would admit as such.

Originally posted by knightmeister
Dooh! I didn't admit they were objectively ridiculous , I just said that they might appear ridiculous to him. Read more carefully.

I believe it because to me it seems rational and likely regardless of how ridiculous it seems to you. I know that you have not encountered what I have encountered so I don't expect it to make sense to you. You interpret ...[text shortened]... ng to ask me what I now know....but I don't think you are ready to hear it in good faith.

"But I didn't know what I know now."

You are telling me! This much is perfectly clear!

Originally posted by twhitehead
I think we can already explain most human actions and have found no evidence that they are not entirely dependent on natural laws.
Prediction is another matter. In fact the combination of chaos theory and the uncertainty principle guarantees that you cannot predict the future beyond a certain accuracy especially with chaotic systems like the weather or t ...[text shortened]... nts believe in S from N but could not actually find a single person who would admit as such.

I think we can already explain most human actions and have found no evidence that they are not entirely dependent on natural laws.
Prediction is another matter. In fact the combination of chaos theory and the uncertainty principle guarantees that you cannot predict the future beyond a certain accuracy especially with chaotic systems like the weather or the human mind. WHITEY

So you don't believe we have free will then? I would presume that you would agree that random unpredictable actions are not the same as free choices? A truely free choice would have to be one free of causality and not determined by another cause , agree?

Originally posted by twhitehead
I think we can already explain most human actions and have found no evidence that they are not entirely dependent on natural laws.
Prediction is another matter. In fact the combination of chaos theory and the uncertainty principle guarantees that you cannot predict the future beyond a certain accuracy especially with chaotic systems like the weather or t ...[text shortened]... nts believe in S from N but could not actually find a single person who would admit as such.

Its starting to look like your S from N threads where you insisted that all your opponents believe in S from N but could not actually find a single person who would admit as such.WHITEY

It's because I really don't see how free will can sit alongside a scientific , mechanistic world view. Even random chaos is not free will because choices are determined by random causes. To have free will you need to be able to step outside causality and make a choice that is influenced by factors , but not ultimately governed by anything. If humans have free will then we are unique in the known universe.