Page 29 of 29 FirstFirst ... 19272829
Results 281 to 285 of 285

Thread: Common theist argument: "You know, I used to be an atheist myself..."

  1. Top | #281
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    15,079
    Archived
    42,293
    Total Posts
    57,372
    Rep Power
    81
    Quote Originally Posted by bilby View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Tom Sawyer View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by atrib View Post

    See, now you are trying to make up your own definition for the word universe, when a perfectly good definition already exists.
    I don't think that's the case. He's basically proposing a type of multiverse argument where God et al exist in their own place and our universe is a different place which he created separate from that. That seems like a perfectly fine definition of a universe.

    It doesn't really answer the question of a first cause argument, since it just pushes the question back one level and leaves it unanswered, but it's not a particularly non-standard usage of the word "universe".
    Sure. But to use that definition in the context of a discussion in which his correspondent has explicitly defined the word as meaning 'everything that exists', without explicitly providing his own definition, is an equivocation fallacy.

    I am talking about 'everything that exists'; He wants to talk about a subset of that, and pretend that his argument is responsive to mine.

    As I am talking explicitly about everything that exists, including any Gods that exist, and arguing that nothing that exists can be the cause of everything that exists, it is fucking stupid to then say 'but what if something exists in a separate category from the universe?' - it's impossible for that to be the case using my definition of 'universe'; and it's not addressing my argument at all if he is using a different definition of 'universe'.

    In either case, it's not a rebuttal; Just some babbling that he hopes might sound like a rebuttal as long as he doesn't have to think too hard about it.
    So, to sum up, it sounds to me like you’re saying

    “We should use this definition”
    “No, I’m using this other definition”
    “Screw you, you’re going to make your argument using my definition”

  2. Top | #282
    Raspberry bilby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
    Posts
    18,945
    Archived
    10,477
    Total Posts
    29,422
    Rep Power
    74
    Quote Originally Posted by Tom Sawyer View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by bilby View Post

    Sure. But to use that definition in the context of a discussion in which his correspondent has explicitly defined the word as meaning 'everything that exists', without explicitly providing his own definition, is an equivocation fallacy.

    I am talking about 'everything that exists'; He wants to talk about a subset of that, and pretend that his argument is responsive to mine.

    As I am talking explicitly about everything that exists, including any Gods that exist, and arguing that nothing that exists can be the cause of everything that exists, it is fucking stupid to then say 'but what if something exists in a separate category from the universe?' - it's impossible for that to be the case using my definition of 'universe'; and it's not addressing my argument at all if he is using a different definition of 'universe'.

    In either case, it's not a rebuttal; Just some babbling that he hopes might sound like a rebuttal as long as he doesn't have to think too hard about it.
    So, to sum up, it sounds to me like you’re saying

    “We should use this definition”
    “No, I’m using this other definition”
    “Screw you, you’re going to make your argument using my definition”
    No, I am saying 'Here's an argument based on my definition' and Lion is saying 'but if we used a different definition, I could rebut the totally different argument that you would then be making, therefore your argument has no merit'.

    So then I am repeating my argument with the equivocal phrase spelled out, and Lion is STILL trying to rebut the (totally different) argument he would rather I was making.

    My argument doesn't require ANY use of the word 'universe', and I have repeatedly made it without using that word.

    Yet Lion insists on discussing a completely different question.

    My question is, how does adding a god or gods to the set 'everything that exists' help to explain the existence of that set?

    If gods are not a part of that set, then they don't exist; If they are part of that set, they cannot pre-date it, and therefore cannot be its cause.

    Discussion of subsets of 'everything that exists' doesn't achieve anything to help with this question.

    It's perfectly OK to define 'universe' in a way that excludes gods, and to then declare that a god that existed need not be a part of the universe under that limited definition of 'universe'. But that wordgame in no way allows for the possibility of a god that exists, but which is not a part of the set 'everything that exists'. That's contradictory, and therefore logically unsound.

    Using the word 'universe' to mean both things in a single argument is the equivocation fallacy, and Lion is apparently either to dim to realise that; Or hopes that everyone else is too dim to notice that he cheated.

  3. Top | #283
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Columbia, SC
    Posts
    739
    Archived
    2,799
    Total Posts
    3,538
    Rep Power
    48
    Quote Originally Posted by Tom Sawyer View Post

    So, to sum up, it sounds to me like you’re saying

    “We should use this definition”
    “No, I’m using this other definition”
    “Screw you, you’re going to make your argument using my definition”
    I was giving him a hard time because he commented that I could not read.

  4. Top | #284
    Sapere aude Politesse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Location
    Chochenyo Territory, US
    Posts
    1,250
    Rep Power
    5
    Quote Originally Posted by Cheerful Charlie View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Politesse View Post
    I don't see how "I am that is" or however you prefer to translate יהוה‬ is any more consistent with a materialist view than an apophatic one; it is actually pretty vague. Whether God is a concept or an object, he is what he is. That is still true if God is an idea, or for that matter if God is nothing at all. Similarly, I could say, "I am what I am" (as Politesse) and that would be equally true whether there is a real human being who coextensively posts under the name Politesse, both halves of a cute gay couple borrowing the same account interchangeably using the name Politesse, an AI computer creating the persona of Politesse through Turing trickery, a subaetheric daemonic being calling the posts of Politesse into existence ex nihilo, or a mass hallucination on the part of the other posters on TF, the sentence would still be true. No matter which of those descriptions is truest, "Politesse" is on some level a fiction, whose connection to a material truth is always or should always be in doubt to some extent or another.
    Exodus 33
    21 And the Lord said, Behold, there is a place by me, and thou shalt stand upon a rock:
    22 And it shall come to pass, while my glory passeth by, that I will put thee in a clift of the rock, and will cover thee with my hand while I pass by:
    23 And I will take away mine hand, and thou shalt see my back parts: but my face shall not be seen.

    Exodus 24

    9 Then went up Moses, and Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel:
    10 And they saw the God of Israel: and there was under his feet as it were a paved work of a sapphire stone, and as it were the body of heaven in his clearness.
    Ah, closer! But one could easily have a vision of God without literally seeing God in material form. This description certainly does not sound like the throne of God that Ezekiel saw and wrote about later in the anthology, and neither sound like the version described in Revelation. Are they all seeing the same object?

  5. Top | #285
    Veteran Member Cheerful Charlie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Houston, Texas
    Posts
    4,144
    Archived
    3,884
    Total Posts
    8,028
    Rep Power
    54
    Exodus 33;9-11
    9 And it came to pass, as Moses entered into the tabernacle, the cloudy pillar descended, and stood at the door of the tabernacle, and the Lord talked with Moses.
    10 And all the people saw the cloudy pillar stand at the tabernacle door: and all the people rose up and worshipped, every man in his tent door.
    11 And the LORD spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend. And he turned again into the camp: but his servant Joshua, the son of Nun, a young man, departed not out of the tabernacle.

    Contradicting 33:20
    And he said, Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live.
    Another din danged Bible contradiction!

    And note, God can fit in the tabernacle. But God is bigger than a bread box.
    Cheerful Charlie

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •