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.
-
Join the MyBroadband community
South Africa’s biggest forum. Discuss, discover, and connect with thousands of members.
-
Question of the Day: What's the most interesting small town you've visited in South Africa?
Evidence for Evolution: resources
- Thread starter cyghost
- Start date
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!.
That's what I believe!.
Smooth Criminal
Expert Member
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2008
- Messages
- 3,895
- Reaction score
- 0
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:
alloytoo
Honorary Master
On this we can agree, it does sound stupid.
It doesn't however answer the question with a yes or no.
rwenzori
Honorary Master
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:
alloytoo
Honorary Master
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.
Lets reduce your inanity.
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 "....."
arf9999
MyBroadband Member
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...
Is the universe an open system?
rwenzori
Honorary Master
The argument for a necessary cause IS koo-koo LOL! It goes something like this:
1. Things get caused in our universe - some event or action causes some other event.
2. Since our little brains cannot conceptualise an infinite causal regression, there MUST be a "necessary" cause, ie: the FIRST cause, the PRIME MOVER. As they say in Brakpan, this are god!
3. God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son ( Bebeh Jebus, in case you hadn't worked it out ) to come saves us all frum our sins.
It's all a bunch of amazing mental and linguistic leaps to try to prove the existence of god.
alloytoo
Honorary Master
Still no answer? They're not hard questions.
I'll ask another one:
Does the term "architectural modeling" imply an "architectual modeler?"
Not too bright with this now are you. Replace "a pink unicorn in the field" with agency (your understanding of it
)Ten bucks still up for grabs:
Person X is looking to detect something he thinks does not exist. Using reductionsm...
Person X is sane, rational, logical and coherent.
Who can detect the oxymoron
.Another stupid question from the "I can detect something with reductionism" and "philosophy 101 is stupid because of all the amazing mental and linguistic leaps" clan.
Last edited:
alloytoo
Honorary Master
Analogy... meet alloytoo, now help him with comprehension as well.
rwenzori
Honorary Master
Not too bright with this now are you. Replace "a pink unicorn in the field" with agency (your understanding of it
Ten bucks still up for grabs:
Person X is looking to detect something he thinks does not exist. Using reductionsm...
Person X is sane, rational, logical and coherent.
Who can detect the oxymoronusing reductionism
Another stupid question from the "I can detect something with reductionism" and "philosophy 101 is stupid because of all the amazing mental and linguistic leaps" clan.
LOL! Now you are writing gibberish. No need to get rude again, try to answer the questions for a change. Or can't you?
rwenzori
Honorary Master
Why is it incoherent?
Religious people say god is an entity that created everything. He must have come into existence somehow.
You people like to rubbish the theory of evolution because it cant explain everything. So by your standards you must understand everything about god or you would not believe in him. So why cant you tell me how he came about?