Endless Punishment, Fundie style

[tsig]

"Calvinball in fancy hats, explains religion" may just be the best summation of religion ever- it's certainly what I'll vote for. (CplFerro won't like it, but, hey, if the hat fits, he should wear it)

Some have found whole religions by looking into a hat.

 

[CplFerro]

It must be nice- satisfying, in fact- to just be able to make up more nonsense ("atemporal infinity"?) as you need it to support the nonsense you began with. I remember, as a kid, doing just this sort of "ok, new rule!" thing to keep my fantasies going; but then I grew up and out of it. "Sophisticated theology" is just piling crap higher and higher and calling it a cathedral.

And, again I ask, from whence did the Universe arise, given that it is not infinite in past duration, turingtest? All the atheistic jesting and mockery in the world do not stop that question.

Cpl Ferro

 

[Slowvehicle]

What do you mean by "where," crhkrebs?

Cpl Ferro

Ferro, Fine and Fancy:

I venture to surmise it is a tongue-in-cheek reference to the "where" in your question about "e" the universe "came from".

 

[Donn]

Why does anyone have to know, Ferro?

 

[Slowvehicle]

And, again I ask, from whence did the Universe arise, given that it is not infinite in past duration, turingtest? All the atheistic jesting and mockery in the world do not stop that question.

Cpl Ferro

Ferro Darling, Ferro, Dear:

What do you mean by the redundant " 'from' 'whence' "?

 

[Giordano]

CplFerro,

I believe the universe is eternal, and existed in atemperal time before the "Big Bang," when it shifted to temporal time. It was a real mess for the first second or two, but then things started to condense into matter.

There is just as much (if not more) evidence for my belief as for yours. For awhile, I thought perhaps the universe was started by Krishna, or it was turtles all the way down, so I admit that these are also possibilities.

Sorry, I have to think more about how things should be (in theory- I am much more limited if I look around and see things they way they are), so bye for now.

 

[turingtest]

And, again I ask, from whence did the Universe arise, given that it is not infinite in past duration, turingtest? All the atheistic jesting and mockery in the world do not stop that question.

Cpl Ferro

And all the pious but empty religious posturing in the world doesn't answer it. There's nothing wrong with saying "I don't know, let's find out"; but not knowing and throwing "goddidit!" around as if it's actually an answer, and then throwing more crap on top of it so you can pretend it really means something, is just childish footstomping to avoid doing the work it takes to find one. Religion is just lazy thinking for people who need to believe they know the first thing and the last thing but don't give a damn for anything in between.

 

[crhkrebs]

What do you mean by "where," crhkrebs?

Cpl Ferro

I mean the same "where" as you do when you asked in #415:

"Where did the Universe come from, Giordano, if not from a necessary substance? Contingent turtles all the way back?"

and the same "from whence" as you asked in #442

"And, again I ask, from whence did the Universe arise, given that it is not infinite in past duration, turingtest? All the atheistic jesting and mockery in the world do not stop that question."

I've actually answered this question twice in this thread. I notice you have NOT answered mine. Dodge noted.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Ferro, most Fair at the Faire:

" 'from' 'whence' "?

tsk, tsk.

 

[Frozenwolf150]

And, again I ask, from whence did the Universe arise, given that it is not infinite in past duration, turingtest? All the atheistic jesting and mockery in the world do not stop that question.

Cpl Ferro

I have also answered this question several times before. I think you're just afraid to accept the null hypothesis, "I don't know, so let's find out," because following the evidence and finding out runs the risk of ruling out your God. However, it's not like you were making an argument from evidence any of the times you asserted God is the only possible cause for the universe.

 

[CplFerro]

I mean the same "where" as you do when you asked in #415:

"Where did the Universe come from, Giordano, if not from a necessary substance? Contingent turtles all the way back?"

and the same "from whence" as you asked in #442

"And, again I ask, from whence did the Universe arise, given that it is not infinite in past duration, turingtest? All the atheistic jesting and mockery in the world do not stop that question."

I've actually answered this question twice in this thread. I notice you have NOT answered mine. Dodge noted.

Don't be a frogpiler, crhkrebs. Amid the hostility to my religion coming from multiple fronts I may have missed a question or two, or thought they were rhetorical. If you think you can answer the question I give above, let us know.

Cpl Ferro

 

[CplFerro]

I have also answered this question several times before. I think you're just afraid to accept the null hypothesis, "I don't know, so let's find out," because following the evidence and finding out runs the risk of ruling out your God. However, it's not like you were making an argument from evidence any of the times you asserted God is the only possible cause for the universe.

At the risk of surprising you, Frozenwolf--for, I wish to be as typical and predictable as possible around all you crafty Internet Atheists--I would welcome proof that the Universe is somehow eternal and in some way "created itself". Except, I don't think that will ever happen. I think I'm the only one around here who is following the reasoning to its conclusion: a necessary substance.

Thanks for the debate anyway, though.

Cpl Ferro

 

[Frozenwolf150]

At the risk of surprising you, Frozenwolf--for, I wish to be as typical and predictable as possible around all you crafty Internet Atheists--I would welcome proof that the Universe is somehow eternal and in some way "created itself". Except, I don't think that will ever happen. I think I'm the only one around here who is following the reasoning to its conclusion: a necessary substance.

Thanks for the debate anyway, though.

Cpl Ferro

No, you didn't. You made stuff up to fill in the gaps, or parroted from other apologists who made stuff up to fill in the gaps. No evidence or sound logic ever entered into any of your arguments.

 

[Slowvehicle]

At the risk of surprising you, Frozenwolf--for, I wish to be as typical and predictable as possible around all you crafty Internet Atheists--I would welcome proof that the Universe is somehow eternal and in some way "created itself". Except, I don't think that will ever happen. I think I'm the only one around here who is following the reasoning to its conclusion: a necessary substance.

Thanks for the debate anyway, though.

Cpl Ferro

Ferro, Bubbeleh:

The universe is not "eternal"; no one but you has made that claim.

The universe did not "create itself"; no one but you has made that claim. It's getting crowded over there under that windmill.

The "necessary substance" is not only your conclusion, it is your starting assumption.

 

[abaddon]

At the risk of surprising you, Frozenwolf--for, I wish to be as typical and predictable as possible around all you crafty Internet Atheists--I would welcome proof that the Universe is somehow eternal and in some way "created itself". Except, I don't think that will ever happen. I think I'm the only one around here who is following the reasoning to its conclusion: a necessary substance.

Thanks for the debate anyway, though.

Cpl Ferro

Nope. You have formulated your conclusion a priori and are furiously retro-fitting everything in this finite universe in a vain attempt to make it fit.

 

[abaddon]

It takes but a moments thought. Even if your arguments are true, why not Thor or Zeus, or vishnu? Why exactly must it perforce be the judeo christian god? One could as easily claim it was spongebob squarepants.

 

[Donn]

The answers to why the specific christian god I've heard are usually of the cumulative form: Once you concede this essential "substance" they perform a Gish gallop and drop a lot of fly-paper around so they can point at the room, covered in poo clinging to coils and spattered upon the walls, as their evidence.

After that, you are supposed to bow, tithe and become a fellow faecal flinger. If you do not, you are of Satan and so on.

 

[crhkrebs]

Don't be a frogpiler, crhkrebs. Amid the hostility to my religion coming from multiple fronts I may have missed a question or two, or thought they were rhetorical. If you think you can answer the question I give above, let us know.

Cpl Ferro

Frogpiler? Unfamiliar with the term, sorry.

My answer is the most honest one I can give and will be a disappointment to you. I'm with Frozenwolf150 when I say, "I honestly don't know, but we are working on it".

I don't think there has been hostility shown to you and your religion (whatever it may be, I'm personally not that interested). There is a lot of frustration with the muddy thinking and logical fallacies that religion seems to foster in it's adherents, which you display in spades.

Examples are the special pleading on the "cause" of God and your nonsense about "atemporal eternity". That grinds meaningful conversation to a halt, which is understandably frustrating on a discussion board.

Anything else I can help you with?

As for my question, it is on entry #432

 

[CplFerro]

Frogpiler? Unfamiliar with the term, sorry.

My answer is the most honest one I can give and will be a disappointment to you. I'm with Frozenwolf150 when I say, "I honestly don't know, but we are working on it".

I don't think there has been hostility shown to you and your religion (whatever it may be, I'm personally not that interested). There is a lot of frustration with the muddy thinking and logical fallacies that religion seems to foster in it's adherents, which you display in spades.

Examples are the special pleading on the "cause" of God and your nonsense about "atemporal eternity". That grinds meaningful conversation to a halt, which is understandably frustrating on a discussion board.

Anything else I can help you with?

As for my question, it is on entry #432

I already answered your question, crhkrebs, by rhetorically asking what you meant by "where". It's like asking how long greenness is. For more consideration on this, see my post on W.T. Stace, #251.

That eternity and the concept of a necessary substance could be such stumbling blocks to moderns indicates how far we have fallen.

Cpl Ferro

 

[crhkrebs]

I already answered your question, crhkrebs, by rhetorically asking what you meant by "where". It's like asking how long greenness is. For more consideration on this, see my post on W.T. Stace, #251.

That eternity and the concept of a necessary substance could be such stumbling blocks to moderns indicates how far we have fallen.

Cpl Ferro

Firstly, posing a rhetorical question is not an answer.

"How long greeness is?" Please add False Equivalency to the list of logical fallacies.

Secondly, the fact that ill defined concepts and made up terminology is a stumbling block to intelligent discourse indicates nothing of the sort. These were stumbling blocks in Plato's time too.