Atheism: See Spot Laugh

[G.T.]

You have access to my intentions

You "absolutely" do?

The hubris will never be matched!

















Just kidding, this is the internet.

You are just a different flavor of Breezewood, Hobelim, Taz, vasuderatorrent and greatestiam. Same song different verse.

I'll file that opinion where it belongs, Ding.

The truth usually hurts before it helps.

Slogan....but, Yeah, and I dont wanna hurt ya so I wont be disclosing where I file your opinions

Actually you do.

Awwwwwwwww, you poor guy!

 

[ding]

You are just a different flavor of Breezewood, Hobelim, Taz, vasuderatorrent and greatestiam. Same song different verse.

I'll file that opinion where it belongs, Ding.

The truth usually hurts before it helps.

Slogan....but, Yeah, and I dont wanna hurt ya so I wont be disclosing where I file your opinions

Actually you do.

Awwwwwwwww, you poor guy!

Only if you had your way.

 

[JimBowie1958]

"i can still peek"

You dont think I can?

You are a moron.

You're emotional, Jimmothy.

It's the internet, settle down bud

Again, you change the subject.

Why do you think I cant look at the posts of blocked users whenever I want to?

Why do you think I would not look at them when I see something that is anomalous and I want to see what is causing it?

 

[BreezeWood]

Did you go to Kindergarten understanding something like calculus? Or did higher learning come with time? it is sad that those who have lived as long as you feel that nothing has been learned over the past seventy years, and if we had elective classes, third grade teachers (haven't having learned a thing) would still tell those of the Jewish faith they are going to hell--and that it would be permitted because after all, an elective class is now being offered. I hold a belief in evolution...that humans do learn over time.

It doesn't matter. His grandchildren are learning how to put condoms on bananas, and how girls can be boys and boys can be girls if they wish really, really hard, take hormones and mutilate their genitals in the state schools now.

.

It doesn't matter. His grandchildren are learning how to put condoms on bananas, and how girls can be boys and boys can be girls if they wish really, really hard, take hormones and mutilate their genitals in the state schools now.

how often do you wake up at night to look under your bed - or is it more like 24/7 ...

 

[JimBowie1958]

Awwwwwwwww, you poor guy!

More trolling bullshit from GT;

No worthwhile content, no discussion, just his typical trolling horse shit.

The girl just cant help it.

 

[JimBowie1958]

When it comes to "personal experiences of the gods" ... the examples devolve quickly into cultural examples.

Why would anything else be expected. Even siblings can have very different perspectives of almost everything.

What does 'the gods' have to do with the Creator?

Is someone suggesting that 'the gods' are real?

 

[Ringtone]

"Care is a strong word. I guess I'm missing that part of it for myself. I find the question of origins to be a hotly debated subject and I like engaging in it with rational, respectful folks and mocking the folks that aren't like that as an aside, for fun . . . cuz you're idiots," G.T. said as he laid on the couch and spilled his most inner feelings like a little girl.

Spot encouraged, "Yes, yes, go on."

"Well, I've always been a bit of a fool, but it was not until I began denying the existence of God . . ."

"God?" Spot said.

"Um . . . yes, God."

"Define God, please."

"Um . . . er . . . uh . . . laughter . . . I'll be damned! I've never really thought about it. Like I said, I've always been a bit of a fool."

"So you say you like discussing origins, but have never seriously regarded the construct of divinity" Spot observed.

"That's right."

"So you deny the existence of something you can't define and don't understand?" Spot asked

"Pretty much."

"So you don't actually discuss origins. You just spout slogans as casually as a dog licks its genitals?" Spot said.

G.T.'s eyes rolled back in their sockets in opposite directions. He began to shake uncontrollably. He soiled his knickers and started rocking back and forth as he sang to himself in the small, frightened voice of a child. . . .​

 

[JimBowie1958]

it took till the 4th century for the crucifiers to write their illicit christian bible.

Stop being silly.

Why do you suppose he is being silly?

Maybe that is just who he is?

 

[ding]

it took till the 4th century for the crucifiers to write their illicit christian bible.

Stop being silly.

Why do you suppose he is being silly?

Maybe that is just who he is?

The only thing he posts is anti-Christian bs.

He’s on a mission.

 

[G.T.]

"i can still peek"

You dont think I can?

You are a moron.

You're emotional, Jimmothy.

It's the internet, settle down bud

Again, you change the subject.

Why do you think I cant look at the posts of blocked users whenever I want to?

Why do you think I would not look at them when I see something that is anomalous and I want to see what is causing it?

Post where I said you can NOT look at posts of blocked users whenever you want to...

I didn't, Jim.

Look - you're JUST a fuckin idiot...not two ways about it. You argue about shit thats not even there. I'm not here to fix you, dude.

 

[G.T.]

"Care is a strong word. I guess I'm missing that part of it for myself. I find the question of origins to be a hotly debated subject and I like engaging in it with rational, respectful folks and mocking the folks that aren't like that as an aside, for fun . . . cuz you're idiots," G.T. said as he laid on the couch and spilled his most inner feelings like a little girl.

Spot encouraged, "Yes, yes, go on."

"Well, I've always been a bit of a fool, but it was not until I began denying the existence of God . . ."

"God?" Spot said.

"Um . . . yes, God."

"Define God, please."

"Um . . . er . . . uh . . . laughter . . . I'll be damned! I've never really thought about it. Like I said, I've always been a bit of a fool."

"So you say you like discussing origins, but have never seriously regarded the construct of divinity" Spot observed.

"That's right."

"So you deny the existence of something you can't define and don't understand?" Spot asked

"Pretty much."

"So you don't actually discuss origins. You just spout slogans as casually as a dog licks its genitals?" Spot said.

G.T.'s eyes rolled back in their sockets in opposite directions. He began to shake uncontrollably. He soiled his knickers and started rocking back and forth as he sang to himself in the small, frightened voice of a child. . . .​

That's just more making an ass of yourself, dunno what else to tell ya! Build strawmen and break them like it's an actual sport, you guys!

 

[JimBowie1958]

Atheism is an interesting case of being a perspective on a subject that is snarled up into an '-ism'.

What other system of thought is built on the denial of something?

Is there such a thing as aUFOism? aBigFootism? aMoonBlueCheeseism?

Of course not, it is absurd to build an entire philosophy on the denial of such trivial things that very few people believe in anyway.

Hence the existence of atheism. It isnt like a supposed aUFOism at all. It is the denial of something that we all know apriori in our hearts and minds, that the beautifully intricate Cosmos we dwell in is not here by chance or 'jus becuz'.

It is here by Design, with intent and purpose, and it drive the atheistic Nihilist insane, lol.

And so atheists cannot succeed in the market place of ideas and languishes as a permanent minority as more people believe in UFOs and Big Foot in the USA than are atheists.

Wherever there is the freedom to think, free speech to discuss ideas and the freedom to organize with like minded people, atheism loses, EVERY TIME.

Maybe that is why the vast majority of atheists are also communists who rule by terror and force?

 

[JimBowie1958]

"i can still peek"

You dont think I can?

You are a moron.

You're emotional, Jimmothy.

It's the internet, settle down bud

Again, you change the subject.

Why do you think I cant look at the posts of blocked users whenever I want to?

Why do you think I would not look at them when I see something that is anomalous and I want to see what is causing it?

Post where I said you can NOT look at posts of blocked users whenever you want to...

I didn't, Jim.

Look - you're JUST a fuckin idiot...not two ways about it. You argue about shit thats not even there. I'm not here to fix you, dude.

YOU posted my saying I peek at blocked users when I feel the need to and did it with five roflmao icons.

So I guess you were just shitposting for the gazzilionth time.

MY bad.

 

[Ringtone]

Still waiting for you to defend your boy, G.T. You brought him up.



From "A Refutation of Cosmic Skeptic's Sophomoric Critique of the Kalam Cosmological Argument"

​

Excerpt:

Part I. Everything Needs a Cause?!

In order to understand the ultimate essence of Cosmic Skeptic's (O'Connor's) erroneous critique one must first understand what makes the Kalam Cosmological Argument of the Sunni tradition unique: namely, it evinces why the necessary existent must be a personal free agent. But first we need to flush O'Connor's most obnoxious straw man (beginning at 4:19 in the video) down the toilet where it belongs and spray the entire contents of a can of air freshener to eliminate the lingering stench of it.

One has to wonder whether O'Connor is even listening to himself when he observes that cosmological arguments proceed from the necessity of a noncontingent existent and then in the very next breath obtusely prattles: "But of course it takes but the logic of a five-year-old to ask, 'Okay, well, if everything needs a cause, then what caused God?' "

crickets chirping

Zoom!

Right over his head.

Apparently, O'Connor lives in a bubble and is utterly unaware of the fact that Dawkins, who infamously asks the same stupid question in The God Delusion, has been excoriated from virtually every germane quarter of academia for his jejune philosophical babble.

No. Actually, even most five-year-olds can readily grasp the necessity of an eternally self-subsistent existent of some kind given that something does in fact exist rather than nothing. Apparently, it takes a snot-nosed teenybopper—who less than five minutes into his lecture has shown himself to be a fool on the order of Polonius—to ask what caused that which by definition is an uncaused cause to exist, call it "a fair question" and imagine that men like Al-Kindi, Al-Ghazali and Aquinas were retards.

(Earth to O'Connor: no apologist of classical theism would ever argue against the logical principles of eternalism and sufficient causality, let alone say anything as imbecilic as everything has a cause of its existence. You are the imbecile in this instance who doesn't fly anywhere near the altitude of these men's intellects.)

But the idiocy doesn't stop there. . . . At 5:00, O'Connor opines:

A few centuries earlier in fact in Islamic theological circles people like Al-Kindi and Al-Ghazali were talking about this very thing and they effectively changed one of the premises. Instead of saying that everything has a cause, now all of a sudden it's everything that begins to exist has a cause. That's the change they made, and that's what gave us the Kalam Cosmological Argument.
​

That's what gave us the Kalam Cosmological Argument?!

A bit later in the video, O'Connor says: "Let it not be said that I tamper with anyone's premises".

It will be said, and it will be said by me.

A little history. . . . Aristotle's Unmoved Mover is dramatically different from that of classical theism. Given the divisibility of magnitude (or mass), Aristotle held that God's existence is axiomatic. Aristotle's primary concern was to establish an ontological justification for his cosmology and the physics thereof, wherein the Prime Unmoved Mover and the several dozen subordinate unmoved movers are discrete individual beings of an immaterial substance that affect change and the uniform circular motion of the celestial spheres in time. The celestial spheres comprise the astronomical infrastructure of the co-eternal, geocentric universe. While the unmoved movers are independent beings in terms of their essence residing in the highest heaven beyond the outermost celestial spheres of magnitude, their existence is contingently bound to the physical universe and vice versa. Though Aristotle doesn't satisfactorily account for how divisible magnitude could be temporally infinite, there is no everything has a cause of its existence in Aristotelian cosmology either, and while Aristotle played lip service to the created gods (or immortals) of the Hellenistic pantheon, there's no reason to think that he actually believed they existed.

Islamic philosophers seized on Aristotle's terminology and related it to the eternally self-subsistent and wholly transcendent Creator of all other things that exist. They developed two distinct lines of the cosmological argument: (1) the impossibility of an infinite regress of causation, albeit, in terms of contingency (the argument of a necessary existent) and (2) the impossibility of an infinite regress in time (the argument from the absurdities of an actual infinity). These are also referred to as the vertical and horizontal versions of the cosmological, respectively, and the ontological justification for both is the logical necessity of eternalism.

Ibn Sina (also known as Avicenna, 980–1037 A.D.) extrapolated the argument from contingency, which was further developed by Aquinas (1225–1274 A.D.). However, the Christian theologian and early empiricist philosopher John Philoponus of the 5th Century was actually the first to argue from the impossibility of an infinite regress in Against Aristotle wherein he not only refuted a temporally infinite universe but the credibility of Aristotelian cosmology concerning the composition of the lower heavens and celestial spheres.

Following the arguments of Philoponus, Al-Kindi (801–873 A.D.) composed the first formal version of the horizontal cosmological: "Every being which begins has a cause for its beginning; now the world is a being which begins; therefore, it possesses a cause for its beginning." (I don't remember when exactly, but I encountered an article written by someone who wrongfully attributes this formulation to Al-Ghazali. Al-Ghazali uses it, but it didn't originate with him.)

Aristotle himself understood that an actual infinity is impossible; i.e., the physical universe couldn't be spatially infinite. Philoponus and Al-Kindi argued that precisely because the universe is divisible magnitude as Aristotle points out, nothing about the universe could be infinite. An infinite past would be an actual infinity. Absurdity! Hence, the universe necessarily began to exist in the finite past. Philoponus and Al-Kindi's primary interest was to evince why no divisible entity could possibly be the necessary existent and invited one to conclude that only an indivisible and, therefore, timelessly immaterial entity could be the necessary existent.

While Al-Ghazali (1058–1111 A.D.) wholeheartedly agreed, he was dissatisfied with the unnecessary ambiguity of the argument. Like Philoponus and Al-Kindi before him, he argued that the universe is composed of temporal phenomena preceded by other temporally-ordered phenomena, and given that an actual infinite is impossible, such a series of temporal phenomena cannot continue to infinity. Then Al-Ghazali brilliantly observed that not only must the universe have a timeless cause of its existence, but this timeless cause must be a personal free agent; for if the cause of the universe's existence were impersonal, it would be operationally mechanical. This would mean that the cause could never exist sans its effect, as from eternity the sufficient causal conditions for the effect to occur are given.

As explained by Craig:

The only way for the cause to be timeless but for its effect to begin in time is for the cause to be a personal agent who freely chooses to bring about an effect without any antecedent determining conditions. Philosophers call this type of causation 'agent causation,' and because the agent is free, he can initiate new effects by freely bringing about conditions which were not previously present. . . . Similarly, a finite time ago a Creator endowed with free will could have freely brought the world into being at that moment. In this way, the Creator could exist changelessly and eternally but choose to create the world in time. So the cause is eternal, but the effect is not. Thus, we are brought, not merely to a transcendent cause of the universe, but to a Personal Creator.
​

Hence, Al-Ghazali appends the syllogism per his ontological analysis of the properties of the cause. Known today as the Kalam, it's this version of the argument that came to the medieval Christian tradition through Bonaventure (1221–74 A.D.), and it's this version that's championed by Craig et al. today with the very same philosophical supports for the second (or pivotal) premise, albeit, as decisively supplemented by Al-Ghazali's personal-impersonal distinction. Craig et al. have since mathematically and analogously elaborated on the philosophical supports and formulated a syllogistic expression of Al-Ghazali's ontological analysis.

Note that neither of the main premises were ever changed. Of course, they were never changed! O'Connor's notion is conceptually absurd, and his chronology regarding the historical development of the Kalam is nonsensical. Only the philosophical support for the second premise, deduced from the first principles of metaphysics, was revised, and the first premise is a metaphysical axiom! Axioms don't require additional proof. They are proofs (or logical necessities) in and of themselves.​

 

[JimBowie1958]

That's just more making an ass of yourself, dunno what else to tell ya! Build strawmen and break them like it's an actual sport, you guys!

And yet you feel this obsession to respond.

Are you that much afraid that he may be right that you have to shut him down with you trollshit?

 

[G.T.]

Still waiting for you to defend your boy, G.T. You brought him up.

From "A Refutation of Cosmic Skeptic's Sophomoric Critique of the Kalam Cosmological Argument"
​

Excerpt:

Part I. Everything Needs a Cause?!

In order to understand the ultimate essence of Cosmic Skeptic's (O'Connor's) erroneous critique one must first understand what makes the Kalam Cosmological Argument of the Sunni tradition unique: namely, it evinces why the necessary existent must be a personal free agent. But first we need to flush O'Connor's most obnoxious straw man (beginning at 4:19 in the video) down the toilet where it belongs and spray the entire contents of a can of air freshener to eliminate the lingering stench of it.

One has to wonder whether O'Connor is even listening to himself when he observes that cosmological arguments proceed from the necessity of a noncontingent existent and then in the very next breath obtusely prattles: "But of course it takes but the logic of a five-year-old to ask, 'Okay, well, if everything needs a cause, then what caused God?' "

crickets chirping

Zoom!

Right over his head.

Apparently, O'Connor lives in a bubble and is utterly unaware of the fact that Dawkins, who infamously asks the same stupid question in The God Delusion, has been excoriated from virtually every germane quarter of academia for his jejune philosophical babble.

No. Actually, even most five-year-olds can readily grasp the necessity of an eternally self-subsistent existent of some kind given that something does in fact exist rather than nothing. Apparently, it takes a snot-nosed teenybopper—who less than five minutes into his lecture has shown himself to be a fool on the order of Polonius—to ask what caused that which by definition is an uncaused cause to exist, call it "a fair question" and imagine that men like Al-Kindi, Al-Ghazali and Aquinas were retards.

(Earth to O'Connor: no apologist of classical theism would ever argue against the logical principles of eternalism and sufficient causality, let alone say anything as imbecilic as everything has a cause of its existence. You are the imbecile in this instance who doesn't fly anywhere near the altitude of these men's intellects.)

But the idiocy doesn't stop there. . . . At 5:00, O'Connor opines:

A few centuries earlier in fact in Islamic theological circles people like Al-Kindi and Al-Ghazali were talking about this very thing and they effectively changed one of the premises. Instead of saying that everything has a cause, now all of a sudden it's everything that begins to exist has a cause. That's the change they made, and that's what gave us the Kalam Cosmological Argument.​

That's what gave us the Kalam Cosmological Argument?!

A bit later in the video, O'Connor says: "Let it not be said that I tamper with anyone's premises".

It will be said, and it will be said by me.

A little history. . . . Aristotle's Unmoved Mover is dramatically different from that of classical theism. Given the divisibility of magnitude (or mass), Aristotle held that God's existence is axiomatic. Aristotle's primary concern was to establish an ontological justification for his cosmology and the physics thereof, wherein the Prime Unmoved Mover and the several dozen subordinate unmoved movers are discrete individual beings of an immaterial substance that affect change and the uniform circular motion of the celestial spheres in time. The celestial spheres comprise the astronomical infrastructure of the co-eternal, geocentric universe. While the unmoved movers are independent beings in terms of their essence residing in the highest heaven beyond the outermost celestial spheres of magnitude, their existence is contingently bound to the physical universe and vice versa. Though Aristotle doesn't satisfactorily account for how divisible magnitude could be temporally infinite, there is no everything has a cause of its existence in Aristotelian cosmology either, and while Aristotle played lip service to the created gods (or immortals) of the Hellenistic pantheon, there's no reason to think that he actually believed they existed.

Islamic philosophers seized on Aristotle's terminology and related it to the eternally self-subsistent and wholly transcendent Creator of all other things that exist. They developed two distinct lines of the cosmological argument: (1) the impossibility of an infinite regress of causation, albeit, in terms of contingency (the argument of a necessary existent) and (2) the impossibility of an infinite regress in time (the argument from the absurdities of an actual infinity). These are also referred to as the vertical and horizontal versions of the cosmological, respectively, and the ontological justification for both is the logical necessity of eternalism.

Ibn Sina (also known as Avicenna, 980–1037 A.D.) extrapolated the argument from contingency, which was further developed by Aquinas (1225–1274 A.D.). However, the Christian theologian and early empiricist philosopher John Philoponus of the 5th Century was actually the first to argue from the impossibility of an infinite regress in Against Aristotle wherein he not only refuted a temporally infinite universe but the credibility of Aristotelian cosmology concerning the composition of the lower heavens and celestial spheres.

Following the arguments of Philoponus, Al-Kindi (801–873 A.D.) composed the first formal version of the horizontal cosmological: "Every being which begins has a cause for its beginning; now the world is a being which begins; therefore, it possesses a cause for its beginning." (I don't remember when exactly, but I encountered an article written by someone who wrongfully attributes this formulation to Al-Ghazali. Al-Ghazali uses it, but it didn't originate with him.)

Aristotle himself understood that an actual infinity is impossible; i.e., the physical universe couldn't be spatially infinite. Philoponus and Al-Kindi argued that precisely because the universe is divisible magnitude as Aristotle points out, nothing about the universe could be infinite. An infinite past would be an actual infinity. Absurdity! Hence, the universe necessarily began to exist in the finite past. Philoponus and Al-Kindi's primary interest was to evince why no divisible entity could possibly be the necessary existent and invited one to conclude that only an indivisible and, therefore, timelessly immaterial entity could be the necessary existent.

While Al-Ghazali (1058–1111 A.D.) wholeheartedly agreed, he was dissatisfied with the unnecessary ambiguity of the argument. Like Philoponus and Al-Kindi before him, he argued that the universe is composed of temporal phenomena preceded by other temporally-ordered phenomena, and given that an actual infinite is impossible, such a series of temporal phenomena cannot continue to infinity. Then Al-Ghazali brilliantly observed that not only must the universe have a timeless cause of its existence, but this timeless cause must be a personal free agent; for if the cause of the universe's existence were impersonal, it would be operationally mechanical. This would mean that the cause could never exist sans its effect, as from eternity the sufficient causal conditions for the effect to occur are given.

As explained by Craig:

The only way for the cause to be timeless but for its effect to begin in time is for the cause to be a personal agent who freely chooses to bring about an effect without any antecedent determining conditions. Philosophers call this type of causation 'agent causation,' and because the agent is free, he can initiate new effects by freely bringing about conditions which were not previously present. . . . Similarly, a finite time ago a Creator endowed with free will could have freely brought the world into being at that moment. In this way, the Creator could exist changelessly and eternally but choose to create the world in time. So the cause is eternal, but the effect is not. Thus, we are brought, not merely to a transcendent cause of the universe, but to a Personal Creator.​

Hence, Al-Ghazali appends the syllogism per his ontological analysis of the properties of the cause. Known today as the Kalam, it's this version of the argument that came to the medieval Christian tradition through Bonaventure (1221–74 A.D.), and it's this version that's championed by Craig et al. today with the very same philosophical supports for the second (or pivotal) premise, albeit, as decisively supplemented by Al-Ghazali's personal-impersonal distinction. Craig et al. have since mathematically and analogously elaborated on the philosophical supports and formulated a syllogistic expression of Al-Ghazali's ontological analysis.

Note that neither of the main premises were ever changed. Of course, they were never changed! O'Connor's notion is conceptually absurd, and his chronology regarding the historical development of the Kalam is nonsensical. Only the philosophical support for the second premise, deduced from the first principles of metaphysics, was revised, and the first premise is a metaphysical axiom! Axioms don't require additional proof. They are proofs (or logical necessities) in and of themselves.​

YOU brought him up, you fuckin retard

 

[G.T.]

That's just more making an ass of yourself, dunno what else to tell ya! Build strawmen and break them like it's an actual sport, you guys!

And yet you feel this obsession to respond.

Are you that much afraid that he may be right that you have to shut him down with you trollshit?

And here you are feeling the need to respond...

hurr deee durrr is all I'm starting to see when you post, dude. Leave it the **** alone. You said your piece...cool! Message received! Any further necessity to hang off my nuts I could only surmise is some odd crush or obsession.

 

[G.T.]

I feel like someone pays these people to be parodies of Theists...but I dunno. There's something extra going on when you take things people dont say all day long, argue against them, and then have a self-congratulatory circle jerk. It seems like mental illness.

 

[BreezeWood]

Now he's onto arguing against assertions that nobody's making.

The pathological liar, the sociopath, is strong in the atheist. Both you and Hollie have denied Jesus' historicity.

.

The pathological liar, the sociopath, is strong in the atheist. Both you and Hollie have denied Jesus' historicity.

your interpretive messiah, christian bible forgeries ...

Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

the many forgeries of the 4th century christian bible ...


it is christianity that disavows the Almighty, the religion of antiquity's prescription for admission to the Everlasting. through a false, self serving and imaginary messiah that did not exist in the 1st century or the dogmas of the christian religion during that period of time.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Are you that much afraid that he may be right that you have to shut him down with you trollshit?

And here you are feeling the need to respond...

Yes, because I would like to see a DISCUSSION, that you are trying to shut down?

Why cant you just piss off and go play in the street? Why do you have to go and shittroll a discussion among theists?

Because you hate the Creator so much?

hurr deee durrr is all I'm starting to see when you post, dude.

That is because you are a stupid fool, seriously.

You not only refuse to try to think about the topic which is obviously way over your head, you are like a child that shuts their eyes and yells and waves their hands so no one else can hear what is offending to them.

You dont believe in the Creator? Fine either discuss it or blow off, and take you troll-shit with you.