Magnetic south or true south?
I am having one of these again ::), damn you cyghost, now apologise.
If you want to cling to your nonsensical, counter-intuitive notion devoid of common sense and lack any coherent argument for why any poor sod should believe “nothing begins to exist” so be it. I’ll stick to common sense thank you. Some things begin to exist. Like when a form changes lol, one form begins to exist, another ceases to exist. You of course have every right to continue to be a contrarian just for fun without being serious ::).
lol I apologise that you are dumb. lol.
I’ll continue to be contrary if that pleases you. lol. Until such time as you provide the answers to two questions currently open: Something that begins to exist. Anything. Just something to work with. Something concrete. Something one can get one’s teeth in. Semantic bullshit aside, we are only having this conversation because it flows directly into the second question:
An argument for pabi that holds water. Is it your contention that the cosmological argument is the most superlative argument for God and if not, which argument is?
Actually, seeing as we are currently simply rehashing a PM argument we had a month ago, going over the tired same old ground, I am still waiting for one thing metaphysics have provided an answer for.
lol and stuff
The Dunning-Kruger effect in all its beauty.
Perhaps the simplest example would be the beginning of existence of your kid. Congratulations btw, only read about it recently.
I think you do realise that if everything is just a change in form and or energy, it does not logically follow that nothing begins to exist.
I suspect your kid has the form of a human as opposed to a cockroach or a dog or a pen or a car or anything non-human (correct me if I am wrong lol).
I suspect that you are also slowly realising your kid in human form did in fact begin to exist at some point in time in the past even if you think he is just composed of purposeless, meaningless particles that change form. All of this is supposed to be common sense. One day he is going to begin to call you dad. Be sure to inform us when that begins. More common sense.
But if you really want to cling to this idiotic business of “nothing begins to exist” and do not even believe your kid began to exist at some point in time, or believe one day he will begin to call you dad, so be it. Making donkeys drink water is a lot harder than taking them to the river. You give no-one any reason to doubt that some things begin to exist and there is nothing irrational about it. Heck, it only takes a little common sense to grasp it. It is simple, ordinary, rational as well as commonsensical to claim that some things begin to exist. It is extraordinary to claim the opposite (nothing begins to exist). Extra-ordinary claims require extra-ordinary evidence or logic to back it up. Something you have neither of. Try again.
You say this then why the fuck is it so difficult for you to provide examples of “things that begins to exist”. At least you did give something here so lets work with it.
Perhaps the simplest example would be the beginning of existence of your kid.woot woot
Congratulations btw, only read about it recently.Thank you.
I think you do realise that if everything is just a change in form and or energy, it does not logically follow that nothing begins to exist.Who said this? This isn't my argument at all. In fact I have told you that I don't make an argument, I just question your "commonsense" assertion that some things [i]begin to exist[/i] which you found so difficult to provide any examples of.
So. My kid. He is awesome by the way, not quite saying “dad” yet but he has a knowing smile. When did he begin to exist? When the sperm and egg met? When mitosis started? Earlier when the egg and sperm was created? When the Big bang started? The point being that you could theoretically trace it all back to that event and perhaps one day when we know more to beyond that. So how is this begin to exist in the context of the kalaam cosmological argument? The claim here, and perhaps this is where we misunderstand each other I suddenly think, is the implied ex nilo element attached to “begin to exist”
So before I go further: what the hell does “begin to exist” mean for you and do remember we are talking in terms of the cosmological argument…
Oh crap, having another dumbpiphany, thank you cyghost ::). All this time you keep saying nothing begins to exist and don’t even know what it means to begin to exist. Ag shame. Go play semantic games with someone who cares. At least you are finally beginning to understand your kid in its human form began to exist.
So. Is this a childish theorem or not?
It is understandable to think so for those who think 1 is not the best and ONLY rational answer.
…and in the beginning there was Kant:“The idea of time itself cannot be gathered from experience because succession and simultaneity of objects, the phenomena that would indicate the passage of time, would be impossible to represent if we did not already possess the capacity to represent objects in time.” and then St Augustine spaketh: "Time is the property (wtf!!) of the universe God created and time itself did not exist before the beginning!Hence there was no beginning; hence no god and hence we are all illusions; ;D
Funny that I don’t necessarily think so then eh? hence the question.
You’d do much better in these encounters if you stop assuming so much.
I’m not saying you’ll actually get it right, for that your grasp on logic is a little too tenuous. But you’ll do better.
lol
and stuff.
Not funny, hilarious.
Yes. We have you claiming a certain list is “childish”. The reason it is “childish” is a strawman reason for the list but what the hey. Then you shamelessly use the same list for your own nefarious purposes with as much as a by your leave to the original author, not even an acknowledgment that it is but a plagiarized version. Truly hilarious.
Then you drag “begin to exist” as a red herring when I ask you if you think your list is childish or not. Taken out of context you try to make me the villain in your sordid drama and yet your only defense is that it is “commonsense”. Well color me skeptical but I don’t buy that. The earth appears flat upon using said commonsense and for ages people thought it was. Like wtf and stuff. Nothing begins to exist, all we have is a rearrangement of existing matter. And this includes your current only common sense things that began to exist, my son. This isn’t an argument that things doesn’t begin to exist. This is a response to your claim that “some things begins to exist”.
No one has yet asked me when my kid began to exist. Not even you. Everyone asks me how old he is or when he was born. No one has ever asked cyghost when he began to exist. No one ever asks him when his fine automobile began to exist. It is a fucking vacuous claim and yet I am to accept common sense as an argument? Yeah baby and pigs will fly.
So. Do you think your “list” is childish?
And yet, after all that fluff you fail to even provide a single simple reason or argument why any person would be foolish enough to believe that nothing begins to exist. Ignorance and lack of common sense are rarely if ever convincing. Try again.
What is worse, you still think a 2 is a rational answer to the OP EVEN if the list is idiotic in the first place (whether you apply it to belief in a theorem or belief in God). Even funnier is that Dawkins and his followers seem to take this “list” as serious and peddle it around as if it is supposed to be serious scholarship. I guess ignorance breeds ignorance.
Why would I want to put forward arguments to a negative proposition? When the burden of proof lies on your shoulders?
It is funny then that all you have put on the table is “common sense” with nothing to back it up. So yes, I agree, that is rarely convincing. Why do you think you can convince me with that? My current understanding of the universe I live in is that things don’t just pop into existence willy nilly. Existing matter change. Please continue to believe things begin to exist, I don’t really care at all. As noted you simply brought it up as a red herring and I will not respond to this bullshit any further. You already believe all kinds of faerie tales as common sense, one more shouldn’t do too much harm.
I don’t think the list is idiotic. I think it is a tool to gage where people stand on issues. It works on some levels, it doesn’t on others. You even adapted it to triangles here. Maths I did in matric, 19 years ago and I don’t ever recall them explaining why three angles added up to 180 degrees - I’m sure they may have. I just don’t care enough and have never used any trigonometry since I last wrote that damn exam back in '91. I’ll accept that as axiomatic but remain reserved - which part of I cannot be 100% certain of anything is difficult for you to grasp? Being 99% automatically makes me a 2 with which I am comfortable with. If you think I am going to be a one, just because you are one, you are very much mistaken. When you say the sun is shining, I’ll be sure to look. You are just that dishonest.
That you are so easily a crackpot with your 100% certainty doesn’t bother me either. (And before you scream and bluster again, this is by your inane logic position so greatly exposed for our entertainment in that thread.) I just found it funny that you use an “idiotic” and “childish” list to to put forward an argument. I wonder what that makes you?
It’s an idiotic statement in desperate need of a little logic and common sense. You are unable to support it, there is no need to take it seriously. You just want to be a contrarian. Try harder. You deny the example of your own kid as beginning to exist, beginning to talk, beginning to go to school etc… all just because you can’t accept being wrong and accept a simple statement… which is sad. Some things begin to exist. Try and figure out what it actually means before saying something idiotic suchas “nothing begins to exist” ::).
BTW, it is geometry, not trigonometry (wtf!!)…The Dunning-Kruger effect is strong with you…
I know I said I’m through with this part of things but jesus christ…
A fucking highly polished mirror you wield… how stylish.
You deny the example of your own kid as beginning to exist,I do. It is a meaningless gobbledygook bullshit assertion you have yet to back up with anything other than it is "common sense"...
beginning to talk, beginning to go to school etc...mother of god... in what fucking universe have I done this???
all just because you can't accept being wrong and accept a simple statement... which is sad.I'll accept being wrong once you provide something that begins to exist that isn't simply a change in existing... no fuck it. I'm out. Superseriously. If you in the future do provide something that begins to exist that isn't simply a change in existing matter, I may return, until then stick your fucking 'common sense' where the sun don't shine.
BTW, it is geometry, not trigonometry (wtf!!)...indeed it is. like I said 19 years is a fucking long time. my bad.
The Dunning-Kruger effect is strong with you...I just accepted your correction, stupid motherfucker. If you had provided any of the three things which had been asked of you here, I'd have gladly and gracefully bowed out and stated for all to see that I have seen the light. Unlike you, I am not scared of being wrong. I have been wrong about a bazillion things and I will be wrong a bazillion times in the future. There is no shame in admitting one is wrong and accepting instruction.
But kindly stop insinuating that you have managed to show me the errors of my ways but that I refuse to accept it. This is simply more dishonesty on your side. And makes you appear more than a twat than you already are.
Like you said, you have been wrong about a bazillion things and it looks like you are not going to be right about your dumb assertion that nothing begins to exist. Try a bit harder.
Some things begin to exist, now all you need to figure out is what exactly that means.
Recorded simply for posterities sake.
How about these ones for posterity’s sake:
“Common sense regards skepticism about the external world as absurd.”
“The fact that realism about the external world is true is what accounts for its commonsense status”
I see buildings that begin to exist… how about you?
I see existing matter change form. Perhaps you can now demonstrate something that begins to exist without falling back on “common sense” or “intuition” which we had learned is not infallible… You have nothing. Kalamity Craig have nothing. And the Cosmology Argument is an epic fail on all accounts. I’ll be back when you can present something, until then your common sense is my bitch.
oh and thanks for the spelling correction, I won’t return the favor, you make too many.