Atheists: Account for existence

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
I'd say you have a long way to go in making both a relevant and reasonable argument for SCAM, whereas in the case of the God of the Bible, there exists no need for development or imagination.

If only I could give an anti-rec for this clap trap.

Originally posted by Halitose
[b]Your selective referencing of my post

Demanding justification for any form of trust and belief must make you the most boring and untrusting individual around. Assuming you are/get married, will it take 20 years of 24-hour camera surveillance of your wife to justify a belief that she won’t cheat on you?[/b]

Demanding justification for any form of trust and belief must make you the most boring and untrusting individual around.

With all due respect, we are talking about epistemic justification here. Despite whatever misconceptions you may have, such justification (and any demand made thereof) is not concomitant with that which makes one more boring and/or less trusting of others.

Assuming you are/get married, will it take 20 years of 24-hour camera surveillance of your wife to justify a belief that she won’t cheat on you?

No. How did I just advance your cause with that answer?

Originally posted by LemonJello
No. How did I just advance your cause with that answer?

I think you set him back one red herring and a gratuitous ad hominem.

Originally posted by twhitehead
'eternal'
This has two possible meanings:
1. All time. As time is merely a property of the universe it would have no real meaning outside the universe.
2. Independant of time. In this case you could be right that it would hold meaning 'outside' the 'universe' but I have a feeling that both 'outside' and 'universe' would also need some redifining.

'c ...[text shortened]... is of course is the killer. If it exists then it is not outside the universe!!!!

"It is so because I define it as so." Your semantic game is nothing but circular reasoning and question begging.

Originally posted by LemonJello
[b]Demanding justification for any form of trust and belief must make you the most boring and untrusting individual around.

With all due respect, we are talking about epistemic justification here. Despite whatever misconceptions you may have, such justification (and any demand made thereof) is not concomitant with that which makes one more boring ...[text shortened]... ef that she won’t cheat on you?[/b]

No. How did I just advance your cause with that answer?[/b]

With all due respect...

Oh please, LJ, I have none due. If any, it should be you fella's with prestigious Phd's behind yer names. I was being the proverbial ass (for all you kids out there, this is the biblical term for a donkey).

No. How did I just advance your cause with that answer?

It (thankfully) proved that you weren't consequential in your skepticism of life; there are some things that you would readily believe until proven wrong. My main problem with the folks who require substantial and irrefutable evidence to justify a belief in anything is that they cut the heart out of the human soul leaving only the cold, frigid yet calculated mind.

Originally posted by Halitose
[b]With all due respect...

Oh please, LJ, I have none due. If any, it should be you fella's with prestigious Phd's behind yer names. I was being the proverbial ass (for all you kids out there, this is the biblical term for a donkey).

No. How did I just advance your cause with that answer?

It (thankfully) proved that you weren't consequen ...[text shortened]... t they cut the heart out of the human soul leaving only the cold, frigid yet calculated mind.[/b]

Well, what I continue to fail to understand is why you consider it unreasonable to demand some justification in favor of my putting 'trust' in another. I doubt you would entrust the care of your children, for example, to some complete stranger on the street who promises to 'take real good care of 'em, ya hear'; but surely you might conceivably entrust the care of your children to a well-known relative. Why is that Halitose? Isn't it the case that you often shell out or withhold 'trust' in something based on the available evidence and inductive principles? My putting 'trust' in my wife is not the same as one's blind faith in adopting unjustified beliefs.

there are some things that you would readily believe until proven wrong.

Of course. I am a fallibilist, and I am willing to base belief on sufficient defeasible evidence. But there does need to be sufficient evidence to warrant such belief. If you think my 'No' answer above demonstrates that I go around willy-nilly pulling beliefs out my arse, then I disagree. In that case, you'll need to explain to me how my putting 'trust' in another is necessarily an act of blind faith.

My main problem with the folks who require substantial and irrefutable evidence to justify a belief in anything...

How many people do you know require 'irrefutable' evidence (in terms of certainy principle or something)? The vast majority are just looking for sufficiently compelling evidence. That's really not that much to ask when it comes to belief-building. But I think I get your jist...

Originally posted by twhitehead
'eternal'
This has two possible meanings:
1. All time. As time is merely a property of the universe it would have no real meaning outside the universe.
2. Independant of time. In this case you could be right that it would hold meaning 'outside' the 'universe' but I have a feeling that both 'outside' and 'universe' would also need some redifining.

'c ...[text shortened]... is of course is the killer. If it exists then it is not outside the universe!!!!

This of course is the killer. If it exists then it is not outside the universe!!!!
For instance, thought.

Originally posted by Halitose
"It is so because I define it as so." Your semantic game is nothing but circular reasoning and question begging.

How do you define these words? The definitions offered seem pretty reasonable.

Originally posted by Halitose
[b]With all due respect...

Oh please, LJ, I have none due. If any, it should be you fella's with prestigious Phd's behind yer names. I was being the proverbial ass (for all you kids out there, this is the biblical term for a donkey).

No. How did I just advance your cause with that answer?

It (thankfully) proved that you weren't consequen ...[text shortened]... t they cut the heart out of the human soul leaving only the cold, frigid yet calculated mind.[/b]

My main problem with the folks who require substantial and irrefutable evidence to justify a belief in anything is that they cut the heart out of the human soul leaving only the cold, frigid yet calculated mind.

Appeal to emotion fallacy, I think.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]This of course is the killer. If it exists then it is not outside the universe!!!!
For instance, thought.[/b]

Are you saying thought is outside of the universe? Are you into Cartesian Dualism?

Originally posted by XanthosNZ
The existence of things constitutes a proof of things existing. Nothing more.

That is sound, we believe it is real, because it is real, therefore there
is proof.
Kelly

Originally posted by bbarr
The universe is a necessary existent.

Necessary? Why is that, because you need it or desire it?
Kelly

Originally posted by XanthosNZ
If I say that the Big Bang caused the universe then there is the question, what caused the Big Bang? That question can't be answered until the makeup of the material involved in the Big Bang are known. For all we know time may not have existed prior to the Big Bang making the concept of existance before it unanswerable. And if time did exist before the Big ...[text shortened]... question at the base as a starting point.

Why waste time trying to answer the unanswerable?

All roads of evidence go down that path, you stop where you are
happy, but that may not be the end of the questions for another.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Necessary? Why is that, because you need it or desire it?
Kelly

Neither. I'm speaking of logical necessity. Go back and read Herr Dr.'s original post.

Originally posted by Halitose
Knowing scott and his materialist stance, I'd be surprised if it wasn't. I know that makes me an assumptive t%$d, so I'd be happy to be proven wrong.

Well, then I propose open season! I figure if we don't have to justify our statements in fact then we're free to say anything in this debate! Go to it people, make outrageous statements, and whenever anyone challenges you, just give them the thumb!

I'll start!! Hal - Jesus loves being sodomised by a transvestite latino!