Not incoherent. Quite simple actually.Originally Posted by Phronesis
Who created god?
Not incoherent. Quite simple actually.
Who created god?
Akshully ( to use the LolSpeak term ) we don't accept your terms, nor your straw men.
But, alloy, I assume Phroners' convoluted and obscure response means:
Yes
Yes, though he seems too apprehensive of our communal scorn to mention the J-person.
I do too, I would hate to misrepresent anyone which is why I desire clarity.
His answers seem strangely at odds with his previous posts on this issue.
I've certainly in the past avoided the J-Person, and rather used terms like Prime Cause/mover/Loader etc in the context of FLE, and Prhony has readily shot me down for suggesting such a thing.
In the context of reductionism I merely want proof that "x" exists before we condemn any methodology for a failure to detect it.
Perhaps you could explain how any methodology can detect something which does not exist? I confess I'm at a loss in this regard.
a2
Join the Great Facebook Deactivation from 1 September 2012
You obviously have no clue how to differentiate between contingent and necessary causes.
Well if you decide to look for something (using any methodology, including reductionism) you believe does not exist, I think you should go for a brain scan because that is just insanely stupid and crazy.
So alloytoo, have you detected ANYTHING using reductionism? I think the whole world is waiting for your results...
Person X is looking to detect something he thinks does not exist. Using reductionsm...
Person X is sane, rational, logical and coherent.
Ten Rand for the person who detects the oxymoron[s] using reductionism
Last edited by Phronesis; 09-08-2009 at 01:57 PM.
Atheism = "sh|t just happens"
That's still not an answer to his question. Stop dwelling on your perceived view that his reasoning is flawed - pretend that he's ignorant - what's the answer to his question?
After dodging the question 3 times, Ill take it you haven't got the slightest clue.
Thats typical of religious people. They refuse to believe that life could have evolved by itself but then want us to believe that god just came into existence by himself.
Thats a bit hypocritical dont you think.
Look, if could read up for yourself what contingent and necessary causes are, you would not think it is such a clever question. Get a clue...
Dodging an incoherent question? Read up on the difference between contingent and necessary causes.
Atheism = "sh|t just happens"
Sure, I believe in Intelligent Design, Evolution and all that... but I still don't believe in God! However If you want to argue that someone did it, sure "God" did it! God's from that planet over there! --->
That's what I believe!.
.::d()b::.
It's not a clever question at all, it's fairly simple. You're the one dodging it by asking people to read up on some koo-koo theory - why not just answer it in your own words?
What for. You say god created life so who created god? Simple.
I want to hear your point of view, not something you read.
Not clever and simple minded one yes.
Great... so philosophy 101 and the explanation of contingent and necessary causes is some koo-koo theory. Brilliant.
Unbelievable. You still think an incoherent question needs an answer. The question is about as coherent as asking what happened after the absolute last minute of all of existence.
Last edited by Phronesis; 09-08-2009 at 02:15 PM.
Atheism = "sh|t just happens"
On this we can agree, it does sound stupid.
It doesn't however answer the question with a yes or no.
a2
Join the Great Facebook Deactivation from 1 September 2012
Because he can't LOL! Only big misunderstood quote-mining for Phroners!
"If Java had true garbage collection, most programs would delete themselves upon execution."
Robert Sewell.
Well, at least you agree on the stupidity of the question. Why should stupid questions be answered to people who think reductionism can detect agency or anything for that matter? Why should a stupid question be answered to someone who is looking for something that the the person believes does not exist?
Last edited by Phronesis; 09-08-2009 at 02:20 PM.
Atheism = "sh|t just happens"
Lets reduce your inanity.Well if you decide to look for something (using any methodology, including reductionism
Person A:There's a pink unicorn in the field.
Person B :Well I looked from a couple of different angles, I found a Horse, Zebra, Donkey and even a Zorse, but no pink unicorns."
Person A : Well it's there
Person B : Well show it to me.
Person A: You're not looking right.
Person B: Show me how to look.
Person A: Here wear this mask over your eyes.
Person B: Now I can't see anything.
Person A: You're not looking right.
Person A: You're not looking right.
Person A: You're not looking right.
Person A: You're not looking right.
......
Your quotemining comes to mind "....."So alloytoo, have you detected ANYTHING using reductionism? I think the whole world is waiting for your results...
a2
Join the Great Facebook Deactivation from 1 September 2012
Your analogy is fallacious (not unexpectedly). In a completely closed system, "random" changes will result in random outcomes. It's a good thing we don't live in a closed system...
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks