For the Creationists

[Sarkus]

Which can only be your own purposefull misunderstanding in a vain effort of manuvering and manipulation.
I sense you're crying out for help but you haven't actually asked for it yet.
Once you've appreciated what has been said previously you might understand that you're asking the wrong questions. However shall you persist in your current thinking, you'll be locked in a circular exange...
For I will allways tell you. Read what came before. If you are indeed a seeker of evidence. If this is beyond you comprehension or ability then I believe you know what my response will be to your next post.

You are truly pathetic, Saquist.
You make unfounded assumptions, you make statements without evidence or support, and you talk bucketloads of drivel and actually believe you are making sense or answering the question.

Fine - you don't want to answer the question nor do you want to admit that your statements were said without any support whatsoever.

You know that you can't answer the question.
I know that you can't answer the question.
The rest of the people reading this thread know that you can't answer the question.

Your future responses in this matter are now irrelevant - unless you answer the question:

On what grounds do you assert that the universe was:
(a) Constructed; and then
(b) Accidentally constructed?

 

[Enterprise-D]

Enterprise D
Time and space is only an issue for relativity – there is no question of absolute existence under the influence of time and space (unless one accepts time and space as absolute – which then makes consciousness a problematic anomaly)


To be outside the influence of time and space requires either omnipresence or contingency on that omnipresent entity


Because its not possible for two or more entities operating out of a different sense of “I” to be both/all omnipresent – kind of like the impossibility of having the continuous weft and waft of thread resulting in more than one piece of cloth

I believe SL addressed this fairly well. You are either proposing a paradox (that omnipresence and space are mutually exclusive), or labouring under a misapprehension. Guess which one we think it is?

To address this "I" business:
1. Where did you get the assumption that there is a sense of "I"?
2. Why would it be impossible for two amorphous entities (or rather two entities with the ability to be amorphous) to be omnipresent?
3. This may sound sci-fictional, but is it impossible for you to imagine two atoms occupying the same space given that one is 1 nanosecond out of phase with the other? How much more difficult is it to imagine than a creator of the universe?


PS Unless your entire wardrobe consists of unitards, that sewing analogy is kinda moot.

 

[Ophiolite]

You are truly pathetic, Saquist.

It gives me a warm fuzzy feeling of righteous justification when I see another intelligent poster brought to the same barely constrained homicidal thoughts about a nasty piece of work such as Saquist.
Take my advice - life has been mush more relaxed since I put him on ignore.

 

[lightgigantic]

I believe SL addressed this fairly well. You are either proposing a paradox (that omnipresence and space are mutually exclusive), or labouring under a misapprehension. Guess which one we think it is?

To address this "I" business:
1. Where did you get the assumption that there is a sense of "I"?
2. Why would it be impossible for two amorphous entities (or rather two entities with the ability to be amorphous) to be omnipresent?
3. This may sound sci-fictional, but is it impossible for you to imagine two atoms occupying the same space given that one is 1 nanosecond out of phase with the other? How much more difficult is it to imagine than a creator of the universe?


PS Unless your entire wardrobe consists of unitards, that sewing analogy is kinda moot.

So wait, god is or is not "EVERYTHING"? (emphasis yours). If so my statement stands.

As a sidenote, you missed this:

"You state that two entities could not be involved in the creation of time and space, only one can. This indicates that before that creation of time and space this god dwells in a place outside of time and space, (that I dub 'nothingness' or if it pleases you more 'no-space').

If we now assert that this god, (before the creation of space), dwells in no-space, then if you somehow claim that one being can do such a thing while claiming it is omnipresent, (something that is meaningless in no-space because there's nothing to be present of), then two can do it just as easily."

Agree/disagree? Explanation?

And your evidence for these confidence statements is?

You have this wonderfully self-referential ball of circular-logic that actually answers diddly-squat about anything. And you spout it as though it answers everything.

You continue to baffle me, LG.

what can i say?

:argue:

 

[Sarkus]

what can i say?

It looks like you have nothing to add, LG - so why comment?

Or is it just that you think your answer clever and witty enough for us to go "Oooh, you're so clever and witty, LG, that all your statements must be true!"

If so - you insult us.
If not - why don't you just answer the criticisms of your claims - or admit that you can't.

 

[Enterprise-D]

I don't understand how my, SL and Sarkus' statements are repetitive. We're clearly asking different questions based on your assertion LG.

 

[Saquist]

You are truly pathetic, Saquist.
You make unfounded assumptions, you make statements without evidence or support, and you talk bucketloads of drivel and actually believe you are making sense or answering the question.

I sense you're resigning to the most obvious ploy of manipulation, insults.

Fine - you don't want to answer the question nor do you want to admit that your statements were said without any support whatsoever.

This is a conclusion, which is based off no internal or researched information. In fact you went out of your way to avoid any accountablity for any research.

You know that you can't answer the question.
I know that you can't answer the question.
The rest of the people reading this thread know that you can't answer the question.

Knowing and belief are too seperate states of ideology. What you know and what I know are different. Because you've yet to compare them what you know may be the same as what I know. Yet because you didn't seek that information in the end...you only know yourself. But you do not know me.

Your future responses in this matter are now irrelevant - unless you answer the question:

I could have told you that. My responses have to you have continuely fallen on deaf ears. If you had infact done as you were told, humbled yourself, perhaps or even engaged in intelligent discourse both you and I would not be writting irrelevancies.

 

[Sarkus]

I sense you're resigning to the most obvious ploy of manipulation, insults.

Your senses appear to be as poor as your demonstrated intellect: truths are never insults.

This is a conclusion, which is based off no internal or researched information. In fact you went out of your way to avoid any accountablity for any research.

It is researched off this very thread and our discourse - research that leads to the conclusion reached.

Knowing and belief are too seperate states of ideology.

Okay - so you believe you can't answer the question. Same difference to me.

What you know and what I know are different.

Obviously - because it appears I at least know something.

Because you've yet to compare them what you know may be the same as what I know.

And because you fail to share, that discovery will remain an impossibility.

Yet because you didn't seek that information in the end...

So please explain how asking you the same question over and over and over again is not seeking that information - information which you STILL have yet to provide.

you only know yourself. But you do not know me.

And I'm beginning to realise that the latter is beneficial to my sanity.

I could have told you that. My responses have to you have continuely fallen on deaf ears.

Please INDICATE your responses in relation to the QUESTION THAT WAS ASKED:

On what grounds do you assert that the universe was:
(a) Constructed; and then
(b) Accidentally constructed?

If you had infact done as you were told

Done as I was told? TOLD???
Is this kindergarten? Well - the way you have so far responded leads me to conclude that you might not have outgrown that stage of your intellectual development.

humbled yourself, perhaps or even engaged in intelligent discourse both you and I would not be writting irrelevancies.

Seriously, if you had bothered to engage in intelligent discourse then you would provide evidence and rationale behind your thinking, not to mention ANSWER THE QUESTION.
Instead you continually try to avoid answering the question that I have asked, a question that I will now ask for the second time in this one post:

On what grounds do you assert that the universe was:
(a) Constructed; and then
(b) Accidentally constructed?


As stated before - if you have previously responded - indicate exactly where - but better still - ANSWER THE QUESTION HERE!!


:thud:

 

[Saquist]

Your senses appear to be as poor as your demonstrated intellect: truths are never insults.

And as we know, not all things are as they may appear to be.

Okay - so you believe you can't answer the question. Same difference to me.

So, you believe you're right and I'm right. I'm hardly without rejoinder.

Obviously - because it appears I at least know something.

Again appearance can be decieving.

And because you fail to share, that discovery will remain an impossibility.

That information is at your finger tips.

So please explain how asking you the same question over and over and over again is not seeking that information - information which you STILL have yet to provide.

When one desires disclosure then one must be ready to postrate oneself. Your questions are irrelevant. They can not be answered because they've nothing to do with what I've said. If you had gone back an read for understanding like I told you to do, we would not be encircled in your reciprocal thinking.

Done as I was told? TOLD???
Is this kindergarten? Well - the way you have so far responded leads me to conclude that you might not have outgrown that stage of your intellectual development.

an insult: Illogical and Irrelevant.

Seriously,

I do not believe your capable of such a mental state. You certainly have given no evidence to such as yet.

if you had bothered to engage in intelligent discourse then you would provide evidence and rationale behind your thinking, not to mention ANSWER THE QUESTION.

Failure to engage flawed questioning the heigh of rationale.

Instead you continually try to avoid answering the question that I have asked, a question that I will now ask for the second time in this one post:

On what grounds do you assert that the universe was:
(a) Constructed; and then
(b) Accidentally constructed?

Futile. You're asking the wrong questions.

As stated before - if you have previously responded - indicate exactly where - but better still - ANSWER THE QUESTION HERE!!


:thud:

It's but a four or five page thread ( before this useless arguement). I find your procrastination...amusing.

 

[SnakeLord]

what can i say?

Well, you could answer the questions. Imagine that.

 

[lightgigantic]

It looks like you have nothing to add, LG - so why comment?

Or is it just that you think your answer clever and witty enough for us to go "Oooh, you're so clever and witty, LG, that all your statements must be true!"

If so - you insult us.
If not - why don't you just answer the criticisms of your claims - or admit that you can't.

its more an issue of the pointlessness of going over statements already addressed

I don't understand how my, SL and Sarkus' statements are repetitive. We're clearly asking different questions based on your assertion LG.

all based on the same foundation - namely validating claims that exist beyond empiricism by empirical methods,ie, eternity, infinity, omnipresence etc

Well, you could answer the questions. Imagine that.

actually at the moment I have to imagine receiving questions that haven't already been addressed

 

[SnakeLord]

actually at the moment I have to imagine receiving questions that haven't already been addressed

Yeah, aha, ok... *snore*

There's that cowardice of yours rearing it's ugly head once more.

 

[Sarkus]

When one desires disclosure then one must be ready to postrate oneself.

Then I suggest you practice what you attempt to preach.

Your questions are irrelevant.

Not for you to say.
Irrelevant to what?

They can not be answered because they've nothing to do with what I've said.

I refer you to post 96 - and initial effort at getting you to answer the question in post 98.

If you had gone back an read for understanding like I told you to do, we would not be encircled in your reciprocal thinking.

We are not encircled - you are just blatantly refusing to answer a question that arose from your very statements.

an insult: Illogical and Irrelevant.

Apologies if you found it insulting. However it was a direct conclusion from your pathetic refusal to answer my question.
As for illogical and irrelevant - hardly.
It was logical because the last time I saw such childish behaviour was from someone in kindergarten, and it is relevant because it is an attempt to highlight to you your pathetic childish ways.

I do not believe your capable of such a mental state. You certainly have given no evidence to such as yet.

Then not only are you delusional (holding beliefs despite evidence to the contrary) but your observation skills (in reading the texts) and ability to interpret them are woefully lacking.

Failure to engage flawed questioning the heigh of rationale.

You compound your flaws by seeing illogic where none exists. Reexamine the posts.

Futile. You're asking the wrong questions.

Who are you to tell me what are the right and wrong questions?

You made a statement - and I am asking you to explain it.

It's but a four or five page thread ( before this useless arguement). I find your procrastination...amusing.

Then end it - BY ANSWERING THE QUESTION!!



Welcome to my ignore list.

 

[Saquist]

I accept your concession.

 

[lightgigantic]

Yeah, aha, ok... *snore*

There's that cowardice of yours rearing it's ugly head once more.

or is it this?

Snakelord – Do you have perception of God?
LG – you realize that you don’t have the knowledge base to determine whether I am lying or not?
Snakelord – Yes yes – whatever, just answer the question
LG – Ok – yes I have perception of god
Snakelord – Tell me about it
LG – to begin with one has perception of the material in relation to god
Snakelord – that is not the answer according to my knowledge base
LG – Okay (shrug) – well what would be sufficient evidence for your knowledge base, since you discredit the material (which seems to be the only thing you hold as valid)?
Snakelord – Don’t be an imbecile and just answer the question if you actually have perception of god you coward

:shrug:

 

[ashura]

or is it this?

Snakelord – Do you have perception of God?
LG – you realize that you don’t have the knowledge base to determine whether I am lying or not?
Snakelord – Yes yes – whatever, just answer the question
LG – Ok – yes I have perception of god
Snakelord – Tell me about it
LG – to begin with one has perception of the material in relation to god
Snakelord – that is not the answer according to my knowledge base
LG – Okay (shrug) – well what would be sufficient evidence for your knowledge base, since you discredit the material (which seems to be the only thing you hold as valid)?
Snakelord – Don’t be an imbecile and just answer the question if you actually have perception of god you coward

:shrug:

I believe a while back I asked how one attains such a knowledge base. You mentioned doing a lot study in that field under a qualified teacher, and you said that without such a knowledge base, a person is not qualified to argue against said field. I then tried to apply that to other fields, such as hinduism and atheism, and asked if that meant you, who I assume have not developed a knowledge base in those fields (my assumption, correct me if i'm wrong), are not qualified to say that those fields are wrong.

I'm not sure what happened but I didn't get an answer to that question. Do you have one today?

 

[SnakeLord]

I'm not sure what happened but I didn't get an answer to that question. Do you have one today?

Sorry, can you point me to the post? In instances where I have gone into such detail it is as argument against lg's own claims, (because that is one of his statements). I have unfortuntely been very busy and am many posts behind. Kindly bring it to my attention.

Snakelord – Do you have perception of God?
LG – you realize that you don’t have the knowledge base to determine whether I am lying or not?
Snakelord – Yes yes – whatever, just answer the question
LG – Ok – yes I have perception of god

Forgive me, I have been drinking. Could you kindly show me exactly where this was said - Namely the "ok yes I have perception of god"? (and kindly add a 'direct')

However, perhaps you have been drinking more than I have, but the questions here have not been whether you have direct perception of god but how you can argue omnipresence when this being supposedly dwells outside of space, and if so how 1 can do it any better than 2. Excuse me, but wtf has that got to do with direct perception?

I will add the other questions:

1) god is or is not EVERYTHING? (emphasis yours)

2) Why would it be impossible for two amorphous entities (or rather two entities with the ability to be amorphous) to be omnipresent?

3) And your evidence for these confidence statements is?

Why oh why are you dwelling on the irrelevant?

Why can't two beings occupy no-space or nothingness as well as 1?

 

[lightgigantic]

I believe a while back I asked how one attains such a knowledge base. You mentioned doing a lot study in that field under a qualified teacher, and you said that without such a knowledge base, a person is not qualified to argue against said field. I then tried to apply that to other fields, such as hinduism and atheism, and asked if that meant you, who I assume have not developed a knowledge base in those fields (my assumption, correct me if i'm wrong), are not qualified to say that those fields are wrong.

I'm not sure what happened but I didn't get an answer to that question. Do you have one today?

depends whether one is arguing against the claims of direct perception within hinduism or atheism or merely a theoretical counterpart

 

[ashura]

depends whether one is arguing against the claims of direct perception within hinduism or atheism or merely a theoretical counterpart

Direct perception.

And SnakeLord, it was from a different thread from a few months back. I'll try and find it for you if I can.

 

[lightgigantic]

Forgive me, I have been drinking.

there are good reasons why driving a vehicle and intoxication are not recommended - similar principles hold up in philosophical discussions

Could you kindly show me exactly where this was said - Namely the "ok yes I have perception of god"? (and kindly add a 'direct')

How much have you been drinking and for how long now?
:m:

However, perhaps you have been drinking more than I have, but the questions here have not been whether you have direct perception of god but how you can argue omnipresence when this being supposedly dwells outside of space, and if so how 1 can do it any better than 2. Excuse me, but wtf has that got to do with direct perception?

if you accept empiricism as the ultimate authority in determining the nature of reality there is no scope for discussing this topic

I will add the other questions:

1) god is or is not EVERYTHING? (emphasis yours)

in the sense that the sunlight is nothing but the sun

2) Why would it be impossible for two amorphous entities (or rather two entities with the ability to be amorphous) to be omnipresent?


3) And your evidence for these confidence statements is?

Why oh why are you dwelling on the irrelevant?

Why can't two beings occupy no-space or nothingness as well as 1?

once again, problems with your knowledge base