God is Existentially Independent

[KLOBBER]

Edited out of the thread.

[Simon Viavant]

This from the genius who runs screaming to the mods when someone badmouths the Koran and/or the ragheads who embrace it. Amazing.
I find this thread to pose a couple of crucial questions to a complex problem on a very basic level of logic. Maybe kittycat boy here could actually learn something if he were able to rein in the diarrhea of the mouth for a change. To optimistic?


Honibaz

Run screaming to the mods? Actually I just called you fucking retarded because you are.
You think the bible is infallible but anyone who follows an almost identical 1500 year old book is fucking retarded.

Have fun debating with the other two people on the forum who haven't figured out that Klobber's a troll. Or maybe two is "to" optimistic.

[b.k. barunt]

It's a shame no one's responding to this thread. Actually it's the best one on the topic of God that i've seen since i've been on CC. Probably to deep - certainly for the average CC "Jesus freak" and most of the self styled evolutionists, although Mr. Nate would probably have some interesting contributions and maybe CrazyAnglican. Sorry again about my pet troll.


Honibaz

[Simon Viavant]

to deep

last fucking time, I'm gonna say it, "too"

[TheProwler]

It's a shame no one's responding to this thread. Actually it's the best one on the topic of God that i've seen since i've been on CC. Probably to deep - certainly for the average CC "Jesus freak" and most of the self styled evolutionists, although Mr. Nate would probably have some interesting contributions and maybe CrazyAnglican. Sorry again about my pet troll.

You are a fool.

When you don't understand something, you call it "deep". Someone feeds you an idea about "personality" and you swallow it whole. Think about it Blunt. Think about what assumptions are being made in this philosophical discussion. Think until it hurts.

[xelabale]

It's kinda cute how the trolls don't troll each other. Like a little troll pact. Have you agreed not to cross the halfway point on the bridge - "You take em from this side, I'll take em from that"? Or maybe Klobber is admitting that Prowler is right, and backing down? Maybe he's realised that Prowler's in-depth analysis of his proposals has completely debunked his thesis?

[KLOBBER]

To tell you the truth, Xelabale, I read Prowler's posts, and I didn't see one that responded to any of the eight points in my original post. If I had seen such a post from him, I probably would have responded.

Also, he's a good guy, unlike the way you're behaving. In all the time I've seen him posting on CC, he's just having a little fun with people, and he even defends innocent CC members from unwarranted attacks sometimes. You, on the other hand, are an individual with unkind and harmful intentions -- you are an individual to whom the concept of mutual respect among adults is a stranger.

There is a world of difference between him and unfortunates such as yourself. He is a respectable human being with a heart -- you are not behaving as such. Also, you are the one who is trolling here -- I am the OP, and Prowler is always welcome in all of my threads.

[xelabale]

To tell you the truth, Xelabale, I read Prowler's posts, and I didn't see one that responded to any of the eight points in my original post. If I had seen such a post from him, I probably would have responded.

Also, he's a good guy, unlike you. In all the time I've seen him posting on CC, he's just having a little fun with people, and he even defends innocent CC members from unwarranted attacks sometimes. You, on the other hand, are an individual with unkind and harmful intentions -- you are an individual to whom the concept of mutual respect among trolls is a stranger.

There is a world of difference between him and unfortunates such as yourself. He is a respectable human being with a heart -- you are not. Also, you are the troll -- I am the OP, and Prowler is always welcome in all of my threads.

Fixed

Just because you don't see his refutation first time round doesn't mean it isn't there fact boy.

Prowler's having a little fun with people, me, I'm a mean son of a bitch, hell yeah. He thinks it's amusing, I'm out to hurt people real good on this non-face-to-face risk forum - it's how I get my kicks. OOh yeah, I'm real angry, I hope I can cut someone deeply today.

Aah ah, before you quote me out of context, READ THIS. The above was irony, nay sarcasm, the lowest form of wit. Guess what, I get to use it here. Disclaimer, the above does not represent the views of xelabale. (to be used when quoted out of context) What do you think Prowler's victims feel like when he's having fun with them? Why, exactly how you're feeling right now!!

[KLOBBER]

Your intentional misquote of me, using the word trolls where I actually used the term "adults," shows that you are indeed trolling, not behaving as an adult.

If Prowler posted any refutation to any of the 8 points, I didn't see it, and that's why I didn't respond. If you saw it, you are free to respond, but I'm sure you didn't because it isn't there.

Also, I feel great. It appears that you are the one who's hurting.

Again, I am the OP, and you are the one who is trolling, not Prowler -- Prowler is welcome here.

[xelabale]

1. Some entities depend on others for existence.

2. There is an observable chain of existential dependence among observable entities.

3. Some entities in this chain possess observable personal characteristics.

4. Following the chain of existential dependence back in time, logic inevitably leads to an existentially independent entity -- one that depends on no other for existence.

5. The atheist refers to this entity as "the universe," and lacks the ability to follow the chain any further back than that, either logically or temporally. There may be other terms the atheist makes up, but like the term, "the universe," each one refers to an impersonal entity -- one possessing no personal characteristics.

6. The Theists refer to this entity as God, and He possesses personal characteristics.

7. The fact that God Himself possesses personal characteristics easily explains the existence of our own personal characteristics -- existentially dependent entities can only derive their various characteristics from entities possessing such characteristics themselves.

8. Impersonal entities cannot manifest personal characteristics or bestow them upon others. The absolute lack of personal characteristics in the atheist's notion of our ultimate origin fails to account for the undeniable existence of our own personal characteristics. [/color][/b]

Point 1 - agreed
Point 2 - agreed, however - do you mean all entities, or just the ones that depend on others to exist?
Point 3 - agreed
Point 4 - not necessarily, time may have no beginning
Point 5 - not if the universe has always existed, see point 4
Point 6 - does he? How have you logically shown that? Something impersonal can still create something else.
Point 7 - this is utterly illogical. I have blue eyes, neither of my parents do. I did not derive this characteristic from them.
point 8 - refer to evolution thread - trying to answer this point here will only rehash that thread

3 points:
1 Was there in fact a creation event at all? It is entirely possible that the universe has always existed, going through cycles of big bangs and collapses, never coming into being. Then there would be no end to the existentially dependent entities.
2 Of course there's also the unanswerable question of How did the existentially independent being come to exist?
3 Why does an existentially dependent thing have to be derivational? The logical conclusion of this is that everything must have existed at the moment your existentially independent entity was created(?), and everything derives from that.

[KLOBBER]

Edited out of the thread.

[jonesthecurl]

I spotted that you included "logic dictates" in there. Naughty troll.

Thank you.

I see you've edited it out now. Good troll.

[Snorri1234]

WHY CAN'T I POST ON YOUR WALL KLOBBER? DON"T YOU LIKE ME ANYMORE?

[KLOBBER]

Anymore???

[john9blue]

Klobber makes some decent points but his argument is basically the cosmological argument with a bit of confusing wording. I personally think the CA has merit.

[jonesthecurl]

watchmaker, schwatchmaker.

[Timminz]

God created man in his own image, simply to repay the favour.

[TheProwler]

WHY CAN'T I POST ON YOUR WALL KLOBBER? DON"T YOU LIKE ME ANYMORE?

Anymore???

Haha!

You guys can call KLOBBER a troll all you want...but that was the best laugh I've had today. Lighten-up and enjoy his work - if you don't, you're missing out.

[Snorri1234]

WHY CAN'T I POST ON YOUR WALL KLOBBER? DON"T YOU LIKE ME ANYMORE?

Anymore???

Haha!

You guys can call KLOBBER a troll all you want...but that was the best laugh I've had today. Lighten-up and enjoy his work - if you don't, you're missing out.

I'm just hurt he would block me after I insulted him.

[Timminz]

You guys can call KLOBBER a troll all you want...but that was the best laugh I've had today. Lighten-up and enjoy his work - if you don't, you're missing out.

True that. KLOBBER is the most entertaining troll I've ever seen. His dedication to the sport is beyond admirable.

[KLOBBER]

It's obvious that you are in agreement with the points for which you offered no objections. I'm very happy that we agree on some things; agreement is my objective here.

I'll address only the ones for which you either voiced objections or about which you have questions:

2. There is an observable chain of existential dependence among entities.

Point 2 - agreed, however - do you mean all entities, or just the ones that depend on others to exist?

I mean exactly what I posted: that there is an observable chain of existential dependence among entities -- nothing more, nothing less.

4. Following the chain of existential dependence back in time, logic inevitably leads to an existentially independent entity -- one that depends on no other for existence.

Point 4 - not necessarily, time may have no beginning

Point 4 does not postulate that time has a beginning; it simply postulates the logical fact that there must necessarily be some entity that is not dependent upon another for its existence.

5. The atheist refers to this entity as "the universe," and lacks the ability to follow the chain any further back than that, either logically or temporally. There may be other terms the atheist makes up, but like the term, "the universe," each one refers to an impersonal entity -- one possessing no personal characteristics.

Point 5 - not if the universe has always existed, see point 4

Point 5 addresses the atheist's belief that "the universe" has always existed, ie, he believes that it is existentially independent. I honestly think that you agree with this, but you just don't yet realize that you agree with it.

6. The Theists refer to this entity as God, and He possesses personal characteristics.

Point 6 - does he? How have you logically shown that? Something impersonal can still create something else.

I have posted some statements in point 6 that the Theists say about God, and yes, they do say that He has personal characteristics. It is illogical to believe that an entity can produce that which it does not possess. That's like saying that you can withdraw a million dollars from a bank account with only ten dollars in it. Logically, that is impossible, just as it is impossible for an impersonal entity to display personal characteristics or to bestow them upon other entities.

Conversely, the Theists would say that God, having infinite personal characteristics, displays them without hindrance and bestows personal characteristics upon other entities, meaning us, in the same way that it is entirely possible to withdraw ten dollars from a million dollar bank account, but it is impossible and illogical the other way around (your way).

7. The fact that God Himself possesses personal characteristics easily explains the existence of our own personal characteristics -- existentially dependent entities can only derive their various characteristics from entities possessing such characteristics themselves.

Point 7 - this is utterly illogical. I have blue eyes, neither of my parents do. I did not derive this characteristic from them.

I was a biology major, and I never heard from any professors that eye color was transferred directly from parents to children without reference to genetic coding, nor that anyone's parents were wholly divorced from the gene pool of their ancestors. Are those your beliefs?

Do you believe that the gene pool of your ancestors is devoid of the genes responsible for blue eyes simply because your parents have brown eyes?

If you do believe such things, then as Ricky Ricardo would say, "You gotta lotta 'splainin' to do!"

There is nothing illogical at all about point 7.

3 points:
1 Was there in fact a creation event at all?

Please note that none of my 8 points makes any reference to the concept of "creation," and that you injected that concept into this conversation independently. Are you a creationist?

It is entirely possible that the universe has always existed, going through cycles of big bangs and collapses, never coming into being.

I addressed that atheistic belief in point 5:

5. The atheist refers to this entity as "the universe," and lacks the ability to follow the chain any further back than that, either logically or temporally. There may be other terms the atheist makes up, but like the term, "the universe," each one refers to an impersonal entity -- one possessing no personal characteristics.

If my meaning wasn't clear, I think I may do well to change the term, "this entity" to the term, "this existentially independent entity," although I purposely shortened it when I wrote the original post in order to be succinct. I was definitely referring to the fact that the atheist believes that the universe has always existed -- eternal existence is one of the characteristics of an existentially independent entity.

Then there would be no end to the existentially dependent entities.

I think that you may mean "no beginning to the existentially dependent entities," and I think that you are referring to a temporal beginning, not a logical precedence, correct?

2 Of course there's also the unanswerable question of How did the existentially independent being come to exist?

Are you postulating that there is an existentially independent "being?" Are you referring to "the universe" as a "being?" If so, please explain why you find this question impossible to answer, and why you chose a word (being) that implies that this existentially independent entity is alive. I used the word "entity," not "being," because it is my intention to come to some agreement, and "entity," unlike "being," may refer to something with or without life of its own, and with or without personal characteristics.

3 Why does an existentially dependent thing have to be derivational?

None of the 8 points postulates that an existentially dependent thing has to be derivational -- you injected that concept into this conversation independently. Is it your belief that an existentially dependent thing has to be derivational? If not, then why did you inject that concept into this conversation independently?

The logical conclusion of this is that everything must have existed at the moment your existentially independent entity was created(?)

Are you postulating here that some existentially independent entity was "created?" Are you referring to "the universe?" If so, who are you postulating is the "creator" of the universe? Or are you postulating that the existentially independent entity is God, and that He was "created?"

Please again note that none of my original 8 points makes any reference to "creation," and that you have injected that concept into this conversation independently. You are a creationist, correct?

[KLOBBER]

God created man in his own image....

You are a creationist, then. Interesting.

This conversation is about existential independence, however, not about your creationist beliefs.

[KLOBBER]

...With extremely rare exceptions, I have found the atheist to be basically incapable of discussing such subjects rationally, without descending into personal insults, sadly....

I spotted that you included "logic dictates" in there. Naughty troll.

KLOBBER is the most entertaining troll....

...You're usually one of the most worthy and hilarious trolls.... I just called you fucking retarded because you are. ...Klobber's a troll.

Thank you.

[Snorri1234]

I was a biology major,

No you weren't.

[Frigidus]

I was a biology major,

No you weren't.

We should compile a list of all the things klobber has claimed he is.