Philosophy Now Forum

Walker wrote:A visit? God is ubiquitous and constantly transmitting.

What on, ham radio?

Is your receiver in order?

Which receiver is this? Can I get one at Maplin's?

Clue in: asking someone to prosteylze and then telling them to shut up. Is this how a philosopher should behave? Who taught you to do that?

I wasn't asking you to, I was just pointing out your error with respect to agnostics. Are you sure you should be on a philosophy forum?

You’d do well to go the one question at a time route rather than building questions upon suppositions upon questions with a shaky premise or two thrown in for good measure. Otherwise it's just too much to wade through unless its a job.

Fair enough.

Was this 'creator' inside or outside of 'its' 'creation' when it 'created' it?

How about this guy. Old school hilarious. You like this guy?

Funny.

What on, ham radio?

In any manner that you can imagine, and likely some ways you can’t imagine.

Which receiver is this? Can I get one at Maplin's?

Any or all of your senses, including your mind. Can you pick up something like that up at Maplins, and then swing around to the dairy for a quart of milk on the way home?

I wasn't asking you to, I was just pointing out your error with respect to agnostics. Are you sure you should be on a philosophy forum?

Every agnostic is a closet atheist until the taparoo. Are you sure this is a philosophy forum? Calling it one, or your presence, does not make it so.

Was this 'creator' inside or outside of 'its' 'creation' when it 'created' it?

You continue to define ineffable as creator. Are you sure you know the meaning of ineffable?

How about this guy. Old school hilarious. You like this guy?

Funny.

Then there is a possibility that you do like the guy, and there’s a possibility that you like him because he is funny, but I wouldn’t bet on it.

For a moment set aside imaginings how you, with your limitations, would go about failing to create the universe, and then suspend the usual habit of projecting your imagination upon some concept that you insist on effing into being, and consider:

The chair does not exist.
Then the chair exists.
What happens in between? (Besides your trip to Maplins to buy the chair.)

Answer: the chair is created.

Now, do you have anything of significance to say about that other than aimless questions?

Walker wrote:You’d do well to go the one question at a time route rather than building questions upon suppositions upon questions with a shaky premise or two thrown in for good measure.

Sounds like a plan.

Walker wrote:If it isn’t created, it’s ever-existent.

By what logical process do you arrive at this conclusion?

Walker wrote:In any manner that you can imagine, and likely some ways you can’t imagine.

Give us an example?

Any or all of your senses, including your mind. Can you pick up something like that up at Maplins, and then swing around to the dairy for a quart of milk on the way home?

Give us an example?

Every agnostic is a closet atheist until the taparoo. ...

And every theist is a closet ex-theist until this taparoo.

Are you sure this is a philosophy forum? Calling it one, or your presence, does not make it so.

Didn't say it did, but pretty sure as that's what it says on the tin.

You continue to define ineffable as creator. Are you sure you know the meaning of ineffable?

I predicted that you'd not reply to the single question that you requested.

Sure 'ineffable' - unable to be expressed in words or not allowed to talk about due to its sacredness. Which one are you? Although you can't be the former as you appear to be able to express about this 'creator'.

Then there is a possibility that you do like the guy, and there’s a possibility that you like him because he is funny, but I wouldn’t bet on it.

Never met the man so unlikely that I like him because of himself.

uwot wrote:

Walker wrote:You’d do well to go the one question at a time route rather than building questions upon suppositions upon questions with a shaky premise or two thrown in for good measure.

Sounds like a plan.

Walker wrote:If it isn’t created, it’s ever-existent.

By what logical process do you arrive at this conclusion?

1. A thing is created.
or
2. A thing always exists.

3.

What’s number three.

If we're talkin' about my crappy car, then, if course, it's number one.

If we're talkin' about the friggin' universe, then I say the jury is still out, so: number three.


Let's examine number one (God).

Reality began so it follows it had a Beginner...makes sense...question: is the Beginner eternal or did it have a beginning?

If eternal then why can it be forever but the universe can't be?

If the Beginner itself was begun then who or what began it?

An eternal Beginner is nonsensical: an eternal universe is nonsensical, so you gotta go with number three/fill in the blank/other.

Walker wrote:1. A thing is created.
or
2. A thing always exists.

3.

What’s number three.

To the best of my knowledge, there is no such thing as a chair that has always existed. It is true that the universe as we currently observe it came into existence roughly 13.78 billion years ago. It doesn't follow that the necessary conditions have not always existed. It is conceivable that it is all the work of an infinite being, but given the lack of compelling evidence, it is simply a matter of personal belief.

uwot wrote:

Walker wrote:1. A thing is created.
or
2. A thing always exists.

3.

What’s number three.

To the best of my knowledge, there is no such thing as a chair that has always existed. It is true that the universe as we currently observe it came into existence roughly 13.78 billion years ago. It doesn't follow that the necessary conditions have not always existed. It is conceivable that it is all the work of an infinite being, but given the lack of compelling evidence, it is simply a matter of personal belief.

Answer: there is no number 3.

Arising_uk wrote:

Walker wrote:In any manner that you can imagine, and likely some ways you can’t imagine.

Give us an example?

Any or all of your senses, including your mind. Can you pick up something like that up at Maplins, and then swing around to the dairy for a quart of milk on the way home?

Give us an example?

Every agnostic is a closet atheist until the taparoo. ...

And every theist is a closet ex-theist until this taparoo.

Are you sure this is a philosophy forum? Calling it one, or your presence, does not make it so.

Did say it did, but pretty sure as that's what it says on the tin.

You continue to define ineffable as creator. Are you sure you know the meaning of ineffable?

I predicted that you'd not reply to the single question that you requested.

Sure 'ineffable' - unable to be expressed in words or not allowed to talk about due to its sacredness. Which one are you? Although you can't be the former as you appear to be able to express about this 'creator'.

Then there is a possibility that you do like the guy, and there’s a possibility that you like him because he is funny, but I wouldn’t bet on it.

Never met the man so unlikely that I like him because of himself.

Why do you continue to define ineffable as creator?

Are you now saying your 'creator' is not ineffable?

Walker wrote: 1. A thing is created.
or
2. A thing always exists.

3.

What’s number three.

3. We have an idea, its called the Noumenon.

Henry wrote:An eternal Beginner is nonsensical: an eternal universe is nonsensical, so you gotta go with number three/fill in the blank/other.

If the conditions are condusive, anything is possible. Human knowledge of conditions is limited, which has been empirically proven by the creation of devices that enhance sensory perception so that what was not perceived can now be perceived.

These devices have been created, although as potentiality they have always existed, and eventually they manifested as a collection of parts interacting with systems, but only when the appropriate conditions came into combination. No sooner. One of those conditions is man with his clever opposable thumbs that allow construction of devices.

Arising_uk wrote:

Walker wrote: 1. A thing is created.
or
2. A thing always exists.

3.

What’s number three.

3. We have an idea, its called the Noumenon.

Where did this idea come from?

Was it created, or has it always existed?

Walker wrote:Answer: there is no number 3.

Well, if that's how you choose to interpret it, but as I said, one possibility is that the universe was created by some god like creature. As i also said, another is that the conditions for a universe have always existed. There are many other possibilities, all consistent with the currently observable data. That you choose to believe in the god hypothesis is entirely up to you, but the fact that you can create a coherent narrative, based on that premise, doesn't make the premise true.