Ņightsky : Please welcome CertainVerdict! There is no "GOD"!

woodman700 : were did man come from kim

beyondbeliefs : woodman, who knows?

jinglehorse_1 : Why is He not real?

tvanripe : because physics breaks down at the begining of the universe and points to a creator

CertainVerdict : the universe had a beginning? hmmm....

Almighty_Molech : or thernal universe...

Almighty_Molech : eternal

tvanripe : almighty that doesn't work though think about it. it contradicts itself

CertainVerdict : I see nothing wrong with assuming an eternal universe.

Ethandune : An honest answer about the origins of man or the universe is "I don't know."

Ethandune : Certainly the idea that "someone" created everything is no answer at all

CertainVerdict : The notion of an origin to the unverse is incoherent.

tvanripe : Certian do ur homework in physics it is very coherent

CertainVerdict : Universe is the sum total of existence. If there is an "origin" it also exists, and is therefore part of the universe, not 'outside' it.

CertainVerdict : tvanripe, I've discussed this with a number of physicists, and I think they're wrong.

tvanripe : like who?

CertainVerdict : tvanripe, but a few physicists I've discussed it with have agreed with me after we discussed it.

tvanripe : i'm refering to Einstien and Hawkings

Kimahri_X : A MOTHER AND A FATHER MADE ALL OF US!!!!!

Ethandune : The idea of "God" is so ridiculous that to use it to explain anything is utter nonsense

Kimahri_X : no one else

tvanripe : who made the mother and father?

CertainVerdict : tvanripe, in fact, one physicist I know wrote a paper arguing for the eternality of the universe.

CertainVerdict : tvanripe, it comes down to examining your premises, your starting points.

tvanripe : they r very alone in their argument

CertainVerdict : tvanripe, just because they are "alone" in their argument (assuming that's the case), does not mean that they are wrong.

tvanripe : i'm not saying that

tvanripe : my starting point is natural laws such as gravity

CertainVerdict : tvanripe, gravity of what?

CertainVerdict : tvanripe, the soundness of physics research depends on the soundness of the philosophical premises which that research assumes.

tvanripe : gravity that is caused by the spinning of the earth that keeps u from flying off ino space

CertainVerdict : tvanripe, then you mean the gravity of the earth or that of the sun, right?

tvanripe : both actually

CertainVerdict : tvanripe, okay. Then essentially you start with the earth and the sun, not with gravity per se.

tvanripe : nope, go back farther when niether of them where there

CertainVerdict : tvanripe, if you want to posit a time when neither the sun nor earth existed, then you certainly cannot say that gravity is your starting point.

CertainVerdict : tvanripe, do you start with non-existence as your starting point???

tvanripe : gravity existed then though because the sun was created by the attraction of particales to each other. (gravity is defined as the attraction between to objects)

CertainVerdict : tvanripe, if gravity is "the attraction between objects" (a definition I'm willing to grant), then we must begin with the objects which exist, since gravity is, by this definition, an attribute of an object.

tvanripe : in physics it is an attribute of objects, i will grant that, since i cannot deny it. however the fact that they exist. what is something u would call "beautiful"?

CertainVerdict : tvanripe, I'm not sure I understand your question. What does "something [I] would call 'beautiful'" have to do with anything???

tvanripe : answer the question and u will see

CertainVerdict : tvanripe, Okay. My girlfriend is beautiful.

tvanripe : y do u think she is beautiful (not in to much detail i want to keep this clean)?

CertainVerdict : tvanripe, because she represents some of my highest values.

tvanripe : where did those values come from?

CertainVerdict : tvanripe, From my choices and actions.

tvanripe : how so?

tvanripe : what basis do u have to say that?

CertainVerdict : tvanripe, by my volition, by reason essentially.

CertainVerdict : tvanripe, what basis? ultimately, my basis is the fact that existence exists.

tvanripe : that contradicts itself and makes truth subjective

CertainVerdict : tvanripe, perhaps on your premises, but you have not identified them, so I do not know how you come to that conclusion.

tvanripe : truth exists outside of indivdual. and is for the greater good of all

CertainVerdict : tvanripe, actually, truth is a correspondence between our knowledge and what exists independently of our consciousness.

CertainVerdict : tvanripe, truth is the recognition of reality.

tvanripe : been reading decartes?

CertainVerdict : tvanripe, not lately.

tvanripe : u have though

CertainVerdict : tvanripe, but I have read much of Descartes, though it's been some time.

CertainVerdict : tvanripe, I am not a Cartesian, if that's your question.

tvanripe : no i wasn't asking that but thanks for clarifing that

CertainVerdict : tvanripe, sure.

tvanripe : but u do suport the correspodence theory of truth?

Ethandune : Erplan. Hell no. We get the nubile teenagers who are in love with their sunday school teachers, every day of the week.

CertainVerdict : tvanripe, well, so far as I understand it, there are possibly several different theories of truth which might label themselves "correspondence" theories, so agreeing to such a question may cause confusion.

tvanripe : what u defined truth to be is the correspondence theory of truth that is used in philosphy

CertainVerdict : tvanripe, in broad terms, yes, you're right.

CertainVerdict : tvanripe, but my view is that truth is possible only when an individual recognizes the proper relationship between what exists and the means by which he is aware of that which exists.

tvanripe : so if u were unaware of something existing then u do not know truth?

CertainVerdict : tvanripe, if something is the case, but I am unaware of it, I cannot claim to have knowledge of it.

tvanripe : i'll agree with that. and on that basis u can at best claim to be an agnostic

CertainVerdict : tvanripe, why do you think that?

tvanripe : because if u have no knowledge of the holy or sacred or whatever label u want to use, or the lack of it. then u cannot decide either way. thomas hexley's defination of agnostism

tvanripe : i mean huxley

CertainVerdict : tvanripe, I do not claim that I have no knowledge.

CertainVerdict : tvanripe, besides, I have sufficient knowledge to reject all god-belief as false.

tvanripe : what evidence is that? present it.

CertainVerdict : tvanripe, existence exists.

tvanripe : ur not presenting evidence only accusations

CertainVerdict : tvanripe, not an accusation at all. My evidence is the fact that existence exists.

tvanripe : u havn't said how that is evidence

CertainVerdict : tvanripe, no, in the course of our conversation, I have not. You simply asked me to identify my evidence.

CertainVerdict : tvanripe, but I can direct you to an argument which makes my case for me.

tvanripe : which is?

CertainVerdict : tvanripe, the argument from existence.

tvanripe : which r what? those can be used for both sides so agian we are back at agnostism

CertainVerdict : tvanripe, no, it cannot be used for "both sides." The fact of existence is absolute, and it is the only rational starting point for certainty.

CertainVerdict : tvanripe, if we begin with the fact of existence, then there is no need to posit a god.

tvanripe : y?

tvanripe : existence doesn't deny the god

CertainVerdict : tvanripe, there is no reason to deny that which is invalid or does not exist.

CertainVerdict : tvanripe, nor is there a need to deny that which does not exist.

tvanripe : ur argueing from bias

CertainVerdict : tvanripe, I am arguing from the fact of existence. I suppose if I have a bias, it is a bias towards that which is rational. So

CertainVerdict : tvanripe, even you must assume my starting point, even though earlier we saw that you wanted to start with something else (e.g., gravity, non-existence, etc.)

tvanripe : ur being very closed minded and circular.

CertainVerdict : tvanripe, I am certain, this does not mean I am closeminded. And I have not presented a circular argument.

CertainVerdict : tvanripe, now who is presenting only accusations?

CertainVerdict : tvanripe, perhaps you simply do not like my verdict.

tvanripe : u havn't presented an argument at all. if there was a verdict u would present evidence beyond repeating urself

tvanripe : i'm open to new ideas and perspectives

CertainVerdict : tvanripe, i have something neat to show you then

tvanripe : u just havn't shown me any basis for it.

tvanripe : ok

CertainVerdict : tvanripe, check out this page, it's really incredible: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Sparta/1019/AFE.html

tvanripe : ok i'll check it out

CertainVerdict : tvanripe, it gives the full argument

IamaChristian6 : The weight of evidence falls squarely on the fact of God's existence

Almighty_Molech : Iama show your "evidence"

IamaChristian6 : The change in my life.

Ethandune : IamaChristian. I am an old man and I have seen no NO evidence of Gods intervening in human affairs. If you have, tell me what they are

IamaChristian6 : The fact that you breathe

Almighty_Molech : Iama the fact that I breathe prooves that I breath, not that there is a god

CertainVerdict : Almighty, exactly.

tvanripe : the ironic thing Boston college Philosphy of religion professor Peter Kreft uses this argument for the existence of God

CertainVerdict : tvanripe, then he obviously does not understand the issue of metaphysical primacy.

tvanripe : he understands it very well actually

CertainVerdict : tvanripe, I don't think so.

tvanripe : i'm gonna read through that section so i'll get back to u

CertainVerdict : tvanripe, if he draws such a conclusion from the starting point of existence, he commits himself to a fundamental reversal.

tvanripe : how is it that it reverses itself? clarify it for me

CertainVerdict : tvanripe, the only way I can see one attempting to argue for the conclusion that god exists is by asserting the metaphysical primacy of consciousness at some point.

CertainVerdict : tvanripe, the primacy of consciousness is a reversal of the primacy of existence principle.

CertainVerdict : tvanripe, do you understand this?

tvanripe : yeah

CertainVerdict : tvanripe, there you go then.

CertainVerdict : Night, don't worry about it.

tvanripe : there is a philosphical problem with ur argument is that it assumes that their is nothing beyond it. that assumption makes ur theory false]

CertainVerdict : tvanripe, that there is nothing beyond what?

CertainVerdict : tvanripe, I don't think you grasp the argument very well.

tvanripe : beyond existence. to basis a theory on an assumption about what is unknown by the author is dangerous and irresponsible

CertainVerdict : tvanripe, you say that something "exists" beyond "existence"? This is incoherent.

tvanripe : so is ur whole argument

CertainVerdict : tvanripe, check your premises.

tvanripe : what r u thinking my premis is?

tvanripe : and forgive me for my horrible spelling

CertainVerdict : tvanripe, ultimately, I think your premises back out to the primacy of consciousness view.

tvanripe : what is my premis not when will it fall in ur theory?

tvanripe : and another problem is in the abstract it assumes that no theist is an objectionist

CertainVerdict : tvanripe, in non-objective terms, you could call it whatever you want. Such "flexibility" is afforded by the primacy of consciousness view, and it always seems plausible to the mystic.

Ethandune : Tvan; You mean objectivist? One who is objective?

CertainVerdict : tvanripe, what do you mean by "objectionist"? and how does the argument in question assume that "no theist is an objectionist"?

tvanripe : yes ethan i do

CertainVerdict : tvanripe, how can a theist, which is a person who ascribes explicitly to the primacy of consciousness view of reality, be an Objectivist, which is a philosophy built on the primacy of existence?

CertainVerdict : tvanripe, to be frank, I think you need to take some time to understand what you're talking about. You are not making sense.

tvanripe : that is y i'm a student

tvanripe : i have alot to learn

tvanripe : i won't deny that fact at all

CertainVerdict : tvanripe, I suspect that these are new concepts for you. That's okay, they were new for me at one time, too, they are new for anyone who learns them at some point.

tvanripe : ur right they r

tvanripe : doesn't mean i'll accept them in the end

CertainVerdict : tvanripe, I suggest you acquaint yourself with the terminology and the ideas beyind the argument form existence before you presume to be able to criticize it effectively.

tvanripe : but i will read through the webpage u gave me

CertainVerdict : tvanripe, good choice!

tvanripe : i'm a very open person

CertainVerdict : tvanripe, and you have a fairly active mind, and that is good.

tvanripe : yeah i know. it is. i liked our converstaion. even though i don't think we got anywhere at all

CertainVerdict : tvanripe, I think you got somewhere, you found a new source of ideas.

tvanripe : true

CertainVerdict : tvanripe, that may be very valuable someday.

tvanripe : could be only time will tell

CertainVerdict : tvanripe, yes, take some time.

tvanripe : but i'm gonna go offline now. it was good talking with u certain

CertainVerdict : tvanripe, you too!