The Kalam Cosmological Argument Discussion

[ST34]

You're trying to elicit an emotional response form me by trollishly and lamely attacking my beliefs. You must work for Jyllands-Posten. Head on back to the flame zone.

you tell rubbish and this your answers are trolling

my argument was too hard for you, and it is reason of your excitable reaction,
maybe somebody else will be able to write rational answer

 

[Kalam]

this your answers are trolling

my argument was too hard for you, and it is reason of your excitable reaction,
maybe somebody else will be able to write rational answer

Your "argument" was a lame attempt at provocation.

If you want to be taken seriously, come up with a substantive argument.

 

[JBeukema]

 

[We Are They]

I believe that none of you even have the slightest clue as to how the universe began.

 

[ST34]

I believe that none of you even have the slightest clue as to how the universe began.

you talk nonsense

 

[We Are They]

I believe that none of you even have the slightest clue as to how the universe began.

you talk nonsense

So go ahead braniac, prove me wrong.

 

[Kalam]

I believe that none of you even have the slightest clue as to how the universe began.

Care to impart your knowledge about the universe's origins unto us poor, misguided souls?

 

[We Are They]

I believe that none of you even have the slightest clue as to how the universe began.

Care to impart your knowledge about the universe's origins unto us poor, misguided souls?

The origin of the universe is most likely unknowable. And at this point in time, unknown.

At least I don't pretend to know it like you guys.

 

[Kalam]

I believe that none of you even have the slightest clue as to how the universe began.

Care to impart your knowledge about the universe's origins unto us poor, misguided souls?

The origin of the universe is most likely unknowable. And at this point in time, unknown.

At least I don't pretend to know it like you guys.

I don't think anyone here is claiming to have absolute knowledge about it. We each do subscribe to a specific belief based on what we consider to be logical, and we're (or we were) attempting to demonstrate why our respective theories were the most likely to be true.

 

[We Are They]

There's nothing logical about "attempting to demonstrate why our respective theories were the most likely to be true", because you have no way of knowing, so thinking that you're right means you're a fool. And if your religion thinks it knows, it's a fool's religion.

 

[Kalam]

There's nothing logical about "attempting to demonstrate why our respective theories were the most likely to be true", because you have no way of knowing, so thinking that you're right means you're a fool. And if your religion thinks it knows, it's a fool's religion.

That's retarded. Not discussing something because you have "no way of knowing" for certain whether it's true or not is unscientific. If you're unable to grasp the concept of making assumptions based on evidence or demonstrated logical necessity, there's really no need for you to be posting in this thread.

 

[JBeukema]

I don't think anyone here is claiming to have absolute knowledge about it. We each do subscribe to a specific belief based on what we consider to be logical, and we're (or we were) attempting to demonstrate why our respective theories were the most likely to be true.

Agreed. noone here is claiming gnosticism except Wat, who implies that it is 'unknowable'

There's nothing logical about "attempting to demonstrate why our respective theories were the most likely to be true", because you have no way of knowing, so thinking that you're right means you're a fool. And if your religion thinks it knows, it's a fool's religion.

You're an idiot. Everything you think you know is merely the theory you acccept as most plausible. We can never know what is true, just what theory makes the most sense.

]
That's retarded. Not discussing something because you have "no way of knowing" for certain whether it's true or not is unscientific. If you're unable to grasp the concept of making assumptions based on evidence or demonstrated logical necessity, there's really no need for you to be posting in this thread.

JB agreeing w/ Kalam twice on one page? This must be a sign of the end times.

 

[We Are They]

"most likely to be true". There's virtually nothing true about religion or any "theories" that they spout. Using the words "scientific" and "religion" in the same argument is total bullshit. Ain't NOTHING scientific about religion, you're both just deluding yourselves.

"You're an idiot. Everything you think you know is merely the theory you acccept as most plausible. We can never know what is true, just what theory makes the most sense."
JB, as if religionites don't argue from the point that they're absolutely convinced that their point is 100% valid and yours is snot. You're laughable.

I'm not saying don't discuss, I just find it hilarious that 2 sides who are completely wrong are debating something they obviously know nothing about as though they're both right... and then call ME retarded.