@ DeepSight.
Nagode! Ose o! Shukran! Grazie! Merci! Gracias! ndewo ri ne! Miyatti!. . . . . . . . .if it is not panadol then it can never be like panadol!

Deep Sight:

This is a staggering contradiction. For if you state that "for all you know, there may be no right answers" then it is inconceivable for you to refer to any answer as wrong. That is logically inconsistent.

Furthermore, your musing to the effect that there may be no right answers reflect two things (1) Lethargy - you are unable to task yourself to vigorously pursue the right answers which do exist and (2) Severe Confusion - you are unable to discern right answers from wrong answers and yet you set yourself up as a judge as to the "rightness" and "wrongness" of the views of the religionist? Beyond bizzarre, and absolutely self defeating.

Here's a simple thought experiment. What is the right answer to this question.

What is man? Do you think there is a way to tell if an answer is actually wrong?

Deep Sight:

So I ask again: provide me an answer: Why something instead of nothing?
You stated that "something" may be the default state. That is a horribly lazy answer again, and frankly I am getting tired of this laziness: For the question remians unanswered - WHY IS SOMETHING THE DEFAULT STATE? WHY IS NOTHING NOT THE DEFAULT STATE.
That is the question, sir.
Question - begging. Why could nothingness not be the default state?

I already answered this based on the best evidence available. Note that you are the one assuming that there was a 'nothingness' then this creator of yours was present who then turned this 'nothingness' into 'something'.

Deep Sight:

You commit a terrible act of hypocrisy in this: for you are willing to state that the universe "simply exists" and that is a "default state" - and yet when this self-same proposition is tendered to you regarding God, namely that it simply exists in a default state, you swing into an sin assembly of an infinite regress, demanding to know who created God, notwithstanding that God is not said to be created.
Why do you advance the infinite regress question, and yet suggest that the universe could be exempt from such a query - stating that its existence could be the "default state"? ? ?
Since you ask infinite regress questions such as "what created God" then logically and fairly you must also ask the same question regarding the universe! - Unless you seek to make a special pleading - the very thing you accused me of! ! !
It is therefore absolutely untenable for you to advance the proposition of the default state and then turn around to ask others infinite regress questions. That is plain duplicity.
What brought about that state?

You are yet to explain why 'nothing' has to be the default state.

Deep Sight:

Is it logical to you that "hot and dense states" simply pop into existence from nothing, by nothing, and of nothing?

We are not simply speaking about hot and dense states, we are speaking about the universe which we actually know was in such a state. You on the other hand are importing location, causation and reason without giving your reasons for these assumptions or how you came about such knowledge.

Deep Sight:

I should also ask you to define what a "singularity" from which the universe began to expand, is.
I state to you that you cannot define or describe it.

I've already stated that it began expanding from a hot and dense state. Which of those words do you not understand?

Deep Sight:

And I further state to you that if you do manage to define it, in that instant you would simultaenously subscribe to the existence of God.

Well subscribe away.

Deep Sight:

Why do you assume that there must be "something" (matter, ha!) - much less by "default?"

I already answered this. Why do you keep repeating the same question?

Deep Sight:

I DEMAND of you that you tell me INTO WHAT the universe is expanding? ? ?

Demand away.

Deep Sight:

I am not making an argument of the Gaps.
It amuses me that you fail to see that what I am advancing is the Cosmological Argument.

I saw it alright but the question I was responding to was about the expansion of the universe.

Deep Sight:

You have acceded that there must have been a cause. You have stated that you do not know what that cause is. Perhaps however the Cosmological Argument (in red below) and the further deductions i draw (in blue below) may give some few pointers regarding the nature of that cause.

Where did I do that? I already explained to you that for cause to be valid, one needs a concept of time which in this universe is bound to space.

Deep Sight:

Definition: By God, we mean that the universe was created by an entity. That entity is what we refer to as God. Godship is defined as being the First Cause, Prime Mover, and maker of all existence.

Cosmological Argument
  1. The Universe is not eternal in the past: the Big Bang shows that it began at a point.
  2. Everything that begins to exist, has a cause.
  3. The Universe is something, and it began to exist at a point.
  4. The Universe therefore had a Cause.

Again with this cause. I already explained to you about cause and time.

Deep Sight:

  5. The Cause of all existence can only be something that is its own cause: in other words, something that is self-existent. A self existent thing exists by default, and as such does not "begin" or "commence" or "come into existence" at any point, but simply IS. A self-existent thing is accordingly immutable.

It is immutable but has a mind? Please be coherent.

Deep Sight:

   6. "Creator" is the equivalent of the term - "Causative Factor" - or "that which makes something happen". This seals the argument on creation, as the Cause = the Creator (Or "First Mover."

And where is this creator? Why do you claim that this creator was not created itself? How do you know it was not created? Did it tell you?

Deep Sight:

  7. The Cause of the universe could not bequeath features that it does not have itself. (This is obvious within sciences such as genetics).

I hope you do realize that you are not your genes.

Deep Sight:

  8. Every feature inherent in the Universe (including Life, Intelligence, and Power AND EVERY OTHER FEATURE) is therefore also contained within the Cause (Creator).
  9. Therefore, the Cause (Creator) of the Universe, is Living, Intelligent, Powerful. . . and manifests every other attribute evident within the universe.
  10. . . . . . . . The composite Image is complete and emerges as the definition of God.

How do you speak of words such as living, intelligent, powerful outside of the universe?

Deep Sight:

So why is this statement immune from the counter-argument of an infinite regress.
Why can we not ask - as you ask of God - "where did the something come from?"
You deploy the same argument to seek to bar me from deploying.
And I state to you that only intangible and immutable things can be said to be self-existent.
Matter is neither.

And this is an answer? How do speak of a mind without a brain or do you have some evidence of such a mind?

Deep Sight:

I repeat to you that it is the experience of time that Einstein was able to evaluate, and the motion of bodies and light within time and space.
Time itself, is an absolute intangible constant, and cannot be seen to begin or end anywhere.
Can you show me a place where time begins or ends?

Such a meaningless question.
Actually, it has been demonstrated experimentally using atomic clocks that time passes slower on earth than in space so you're not really making any sense.

Deep Sight:

It is obvious to the calm mind that the statement "time began with the big bang" - makes no sense whatsoever abd it self-contradictory.
Here -
Check out the words -
"Time began. . ."
Stop for a moment and reflect. The first word contradicts the second word. The moment you use the word "begin", you are already refering to a moment within already existing time.

What are you claiming here? That time as we know it is infinite? This is an absurd statement. You simply wish to use wordplay.

Deep Sight:

[b]Going further, the calmly thoughtful mind can easily discern that what ever eternal state in which the "hot dense singular point" is said to have existed in, it began an expansion at some moment.
Since this is the case, the very existence of that moment naturally infers that the dense hot point had existed prior to that moment.
The existence of the dense hot point prior to that moment of expansion is an existence in time, otherwise, we could not even use the word "prior"  - and the dense hot point would not even be said to exist at all!
In this you can see that there is no circumstance without time. Time simply is.

An existence in what time? I hope you realize that you are implying some sort of time line outside of this universe. My simple question to you is your evidence for this beyond mere wordplay.

Deep Sight:

It is the experience of time, and the behaviour of bodies and light within time that you can analyse the way Einstein did.[/b]
Yes, time is an infinite constant: it is: it does not cease: it remains an intangible reality.
When you say "time for that person started with the big bang" you unwittingly acknowledge that there is time by itself, and then there is what that one person's perception of it may or may not be.

Oh are you serious? Time is an infinite constant? What does this even mean? It is infinite and does not change? How do you measure it?
So you wish to speak confidently of some time line outside the universe? How do you measure this time or are you simply imagining it as you go along?

Deep Sight:

I am surprised you do not see that the very word "started" connotes a commencement at a point in time.
What you are referring to is our measurement of the age of the universe, not TIME itself as an intangible concept.

How do you speak of the commencement of time itself?

Deep Sight:

Then please tell me what the universe is expanding into?
Another "I don't know" on this one will just be too sad.
Because if you do not know, you should end the chit chat right here and now.

We simply have no information of this whether it is a void, another universe or if it is the only universe available. We have no evidence whichever way. Do you wish to plug this with something else?

Deep Sight:

Demonstrate the expansion of time.
I repeat to you that it is the behaviour of bodies and light within time that is observed in expansion or retraction and not time itself.

You wish me to demonstrate time-dilation? Why don't you look it up on Wikipedia?
I already explained to you how time is also bound with space forming the dimension space-time.

Deep Sight:

I really have to ask you what you imagine time to be.
For your use of the word "other time" is just regrettable to any approximation of the concept of time.
I repeat to you that the very fact that a hot dense point is said to exist BEFORE the expansion, is already a statement made with an acknowledgement of the existence of a period before the expansion.
What is such a period, if not time? ? ? ?
Aha. And before it "started" expanding. . .?

Before the expansion, using time in this universe would simply be meaningless.

Deep Sight:

I hope you see now.
"What created the hot and dense point that caused it to expand into a universe? This goes on till infinity unless you use a special pleading to create this hot and dense point of yours." Your words, not mine.

No. We already have a sample size of 1 that this hot dense state was present. Any other information you wish to add to this is simply your own imagination unless you have serious evidence to back it up.

Deep Sight:

I did not presume that.

Then what were you saying about some creator creating everything?

Deep Sight:

You, on the other hand, presume that a gross material state, just sits there existing from eternity. Where is your proof for that?

This I did not say. Do I really have to keep repeating myself?

Deep Sight:

Are you attending  Hogwarths? How did that state arrive? You ask infinite regress questions and evade the same question of your own theory. You even give the same answer I give - a state of default - save your case cannot be tendered because material things do not self exist because they are not immutable. They change. Self-existent things are logically immutable and unchangeable. They also logically cannot be tangible.
So what is the principle behind your default state? Why exactly is it a default state? And how so?

I said it could be because we already have a sample size of 1 (our universe) which was in such a state. This is as far as the information we have goes. All you're doing is introducing an entity, giving it some power and unleashing it on the universe from 'nothingness'.

Deep Sight:

No: every religion understands and recognises the concept of God as being that which created all that exists. In my propositions I have not deviated from that basic understanding.

Ok then. But this applies mainly to the monotheistic religions because some Gods have fathers, others are killed by their children.

Deep Sight:

Flawed; because the universe is real, it is tangible gross matter and as such cosmological question as to its source my be probed by the inquiring mind.

Oh? So do you probe the reasons behind these other Gods? Or are they all false?

Deep Sight:

Might I ask what is meaningful to you?

An example is a clearly explained purpose with reasons and how you came about such knowledge.

Deep Sight:

Why even bother existing, tell me. What's the point?

I have my own reasons for continuing my existence which include but are not limited to family, friends, personal interest. These and others are my points.
What is your reason for existing?

Deep Sight:

There is no evidence for your claim that a material something is possibly the default state of things.

Already told you it may be so for universe-like objects.

Deep Sight:

There is no eveidence for your claim that time commenced at the moment of the big bang.

Oh my. It seems you're going to have to develop your own astro-physics field.

Deep Sight:

There is no evidence for your claim that space was created by the big bang, exactly because you CANNOT tell me INTO WHAT the universe is expanding?

No evidence? How about the fact that the universe is actually expanding? Or do you doubt that too?
About what the universe is expanding into? We simply have no information about this. This does not mean you are free to plug this in with whatever you like.

Deep Sight:

Busted. Kindergarten logic really.
You yourself have described the pre-bang state as being a hot dense point?
Once you can decribe a previous time and state, it is incongruous to state that time only began after that already acknowledged previous time and state.
No event can precede itself!

I thought it was clear that time as we know it was simply not available before the universe began to expand because as I said, time and space are intricately linked.

Ach! I will revert tomorrow, Deep Sight. I and Kratos just finished killing one badass and we need a break


But before I go, lemme just say that I made a typo here

Deep Sight:


Self contradictory.

Discern the contradictions - you state -

"However I don't think there's any logical reason to say He exists." - (Statement 1)

Which is scandalously contradictory to your next statement -

"Sure it is inconceivable that the universe pops out of anything. I agree." - (Statement 2)

This statement absolutely and irretrievably infers that Statement 1 is false.

You would need to ponder on this - and this alone and singularly puts a lie to the rest of your post.

It infers directly that there is every logical basis and ratiionale for the belief in a pre-existent entity - God.

Time is an intangible constant.

yada yada yada

I meant to say: Sure it is inconceivable that the universe pops out of nothing All this street english don dey finish me It is apparent that I was agreeing with your position there which is that the universe didn't just pop outta nothing.

Meanwhile, I'm glad you hauled Thomas Aquinas' butt into this. I've been meaning to kick it a while but haven't had an excuse.

DeepSight, I suggest you understand the scientific definition of time. You don't even need to go that far. You must have heard the phrase, 'time stood still' usually marked by everything stopping. Also think of the phrase 'turning back time' in which everything happens in reverse. Your perception of time is a rigid non-stopping flow (and this is just a perception), my understanding of time (and also that of science I believe) is that marked by events (or motion) which therefore can be stopped, fast-forwarded or slowed down i.e. the first phrase. The utterly wrong idea of time is that which can be rewound. You can't go back in time.

Bottomline, time is marked by events. No events means time ceases to exist. If something stays in one fixed way, time also stops. So there's really no time before the big bang. It was birthed when it exploded. Assuming you believe in the Big Bang. Also space is not a thing. It is a lack of thing. Lack of matter. Please understand that I speak in these terms. Maybe you'll understand me better and possibly, thehomer too.

Actually I've not seen St. Thomas' 'proofs' elaborated like this before. Was this how he originally postulated them? Anyways, it's safe to say that the first three proofs are saying the same thing. They're all integrating an infinite fraction and arriving at God. The unmoved mover. The uncaused causer. The ever present causer and mover of all things that now you see and later, you don't. All three proofs realize a backward infinity and seek to arbitrarily set limits upon it and call this God. Never mind the callous smugness of saying "presto! God exists!", why does it have to be a sentient being? For all intents and purposes, the Big Bang is God. His argument is same with mine, only it stops when it got tired. Who made God? Nobody? Then why is it impossible to believe that no one made us too? It must certainly be easier for Mr. No One to make us than the terribly perfect, omniscient, omnipotent, omnietc God.

The fourth argument is actually endearing. Aquinas must have been battling inside himself. This argument is ridiculous and is still in the same vein as the first three. An infinity that must peak and the peak being God. I'll discount it simply this way. If the fact that there are varying goodness means that there must be a peak of goodness and this is God, I might say that there will also be a peak of evil and this is the devil (or whatever you like) which cancels out God in every respect. Bear in mind that it is inconsistent logic to be the extremes of two things at once. You can't be the hottest coldest thing.

The last proof is the one that I haven't been able to shake off. I still kinda believe in it halfway but not in the way he put it though. But since it's largely the same thing we think here, I'll leave this one. Suffice it to say that it is a paradox. You see a law and automatically think someone must have been responsible for it. We count one to ten but it is because we have chosen to work in base ten. We might've chosen to work in base 12 or 4. We'd still get on with life. Order, elegance etc are not tangible and do not constitute scientific theory let alone proof. It's just the human romantic tendency. It reminds me of when some scientist(s) picked up regular radio waves from outer space (now called pulsars I believe) and thought it might be aliens trying to communicate. We in turn broadcast radio waves to the universe hoping they'll be intercepted by intelligent beings. Never mind that our sun might have gone out before they receive the waves let alone determine their source. There's also the sequences of numbers. If I write a number sequence 2,4,6,8,10,12 up to 30. There are an infinite different formulas that can produce this sequence, most of which are probably so complex, it'd take a super computer weeks to compute, let alone generate. Bottomline: elegance proofs nothing.

I'm sorry, I'm sleepy. I'll reply the main post tomorrow.

@ thehomer -

I percieve that if we persist with this peicemeal approach, we will not get very far.

I thus propose to break down the issues very carefully and take them step by step. In this, I will do away with elements of the discussion that are not useful to the overall object that we seek to discuss. For this reason, even though i do not know how it is possible to use words such as "before" or "prior to" the initial expansion, without thereby simultaenously indicating a pre-existent state also indicative of time, I will have no choice but to leave that issue aside and focus on the main point.

The main point is your assertion that "critical thinking leads to a non-belief in God."

I vehemently disagree with this. I am of the view that critical thinking mujst certainly espouse something pre-existent: and further critical trhinking can discern certain attributes of that which is pre-existent.

I further state to you that the reverse: namely a conclusion that God does not exist: is unsustainable as it amounts to an endorsement of a meaningless and purposeless commencement of existence: and this is at odds with every tenet of simple logic. Particularly it directly contradicts the observable laws of motion.

Rather than continue in the piece-meal fashion whereat nothing is being gained, I will simply advance this discussion by putting the following questions to you:

1. You state that "prior" (hmmm!)  to the initial expansion that is referred to as the big bang, only a hot dense point, called a singularity existed.

      - Can you define for me what that singularity is.

      - Can you tell me why it is rational to suppose that it simply exists there of itself and by itself and of no cause, reason or rationale?

      - If not, can you suggest what its cause, reason or rationale may be?

      - Was that singularity Material/ Physical?

      - If it was, is it rational to suppose the singularity to be self/ existent (default state) in light of the changeable nature of matter and energy?

      - Are self-existent things changeable?

      - If self-existent things are not changeable, is it rational to suppose that matter is a self existent thing?

These form the first series.

Thank you, in anticipation of your responses.

vescucci:

DeepSight, I suggest you understand the scientific definition of time. You don't even need to go that far. You must have heard the phrase, 'time stood still' usually marked by everything stopping. Also think of the phrase 'turning back time' in which everything happens in reverse. Your perception of time is a rigid non-stopping flow (and this is just a perception), my understanding of time (and also that of science I believe) is that marked by events (or motion) which therefore can be stopped, fast-forwarded or slowed down i.e. the first phrase. The utterly wrong idea of time is that which can be rewound. You can't go back in time.

Bottomline, time is marked by events. No events means time ceases to exist. If something stays in one fixed way, time also stops.

You have described human perception of motions and events.

You have not described time.

We are in an anthill where everything stops moving. And we presume that is the end of time. HA!

Deep Sight:

@ thehomer -

I percieve that if we persist with this peicemeal approach, we will not get very far.

Ok.

Deep Sight:

I thus propose to break down the issues very carefully and take them step by step. In this, I will do away with elements of the discussion that are not useful to the overall object that we seek to discuss. For this reason, even though i do not know how it is possible to use words such as "before" or "prior to" the initial expansion, without thereby simultaenously indicating a pre-existent state also indicative of time, I will have no choice but to leave that issue aside and focus on the main point.

Ok.

Deep Sight:

The main point is your assertion that "critical thinking leads to a non-belief in God."

Yes it tends towards that.

Deep Sight:

I vehemently disagree with this. I am of the view that critical thinking mujst certainly espouse something pre-existent: and further critical trhinking can discern certain attributes of that which is pre-existent.

Ok. How do you propose to do this considering that all the information we have about this universe is only available to us within this universe?

Deep Sight:

I further state to you that the reverse: namely a conclusion that God does not exist: is unsustainable as it amounts to an endorsement of a meaningless and purposeless commencement of existence: and this is at odds with every tenet of simple logic. Particularly it directly contradicts the observable laws of motion.

How does it contradict the laws of motion? (Keeping aside the fact that the motion you wish to describe is only available to us within the universe.)

Deep Sight:

Rather than continue in the piece-meal fashion whereat nothing is being gained, I will simply advance this discussion by putting the following questions to you:

Ok.

Deep Sight:

1. You state that "prior" (hmmm!)  to the initial expansion that is referred to as the big bang, only a hot dense point, called a singularity existed.

      - Can you define for me what that singularity is.

This singularity was when the universe had no dimension and based on this, the matter and energy available was unmeasurable.

Deep Sight:

      - Can you tell me why it is rational to suppose that it simply exists there of itself and by itself and of no cause, reason or rationale?

What we do know is that such a state was present. Attempting to infer reason or rationale to me is the height of hubris and I cannot do this due to the woefully inadequate evidence at my disposal.

Deep Sight:

      - If not, can you suggest what its cause, reason or rationale may be?

I cannot suggest a cause because according to the best evidence available, time also began with the expansion and causality as I understand it requires the dimension of time. I also cannot suggest a reason or rationale due to reasons pointed out above.

Deep Sight:

      - Was that singularity Material/ Physical?

Yes.

Deep Sight:

      - If it was, is it rational to suppose the singularity to be self/ existent (default state) in light of the changeable nature of matter and energy?

Yes.

Deep Sight:

      - Are self-existent things changeable?

Yes since we do know that this universe commenced from this super hot and dense state.

Deep Sight:

      - If self-existent things are not changeable, is it rational to suppose that matter is a self existent thing?

I think matter and energy do change into one another.

Deep Sight:

These form the first series.

Thank you, in anticipation of your responses.

You're welcome.

thehomer:

Yes it tends towards that.

In everything that you have said, it must be noted that you have not stated exactly why critical thinking must tend towards a non-belief in God.

So long as God is understood to be a pre-existent factor which caused the universe as we know it (and this is the general understanding of what God is) - then in NO wise can you show that critical thinking tends towards a conclusion that such a pre-existent factor does not exist.

If anything, not just critical thinking, but common sense as well, would stand on the side of the existnce of a pre-existent causative factor. Indeed YOU YOURSELF have conceded that there would be such a causative factor but you have averred that you do not know what it is. That is fair enough - and that is more than enough for the objective reader to conclude that you have no business discountenancing the existence of God.

It seems to me you have to put aside the notion of a Santa Claus sitting in the clouds as the notion of God that you are trying to debunk: I do not think anything so puerile has ever formed the basis or gammut of my discussions: and I am certainly not prepared to entertain a discussion based on any such childish notion at this time. God, in terms of this particular discourse - is simply a reference to the pre-existent factor that caused existence as we know it. As far as that is the case, then your submissions have already acceded to and accepted the existence of such a factor, given that you have spoken of a pre-singularity state.

How does it contradict the laws of motion? (Keeping aside the fact that the motion you wish to describe is only available to us within the universe.)

The laws of motion give us to know that no motion is observed without a triggering cause or factor - other motion.

This obtains in the physical universe.

You already stated that the singularity was a physical state.

Ergo, you CANNOT seek to exempt it from physical laws.

The inescapable conclusion is that the initial expansion must have had a triggering cause or factor as well: given that it is an expansion of matter: and matter is not known to move without a triggering cause or factor.

This alone puts a final and decisive lie to any suggestion on your part that the initial expansion may be an uncaused event.

You can in no terms escape or deny this.

. . .time also began with the expansion

Can I ask you why then you have been able to describe a pre-[/b]expansion state.

You described that state as "hot and dense" - and you stated this to be [b]before the expansion.

Can anybody coherently use words such as "before" and "after" without a construct of time? ? ?

PS: Your responses on the questions of self-existence were simply disastrous, no offence intended. However I have decided to leave them off for now as discussing the concept of self existence with you will clearly take forever. It is easier for me to focus your mind on the clear thrust of the main discussion - and this I will do with the posers I give you. Please address the posers in red above. Thanks.

Given the foregoing, I may deduce that your arguments once addressed with basic logic, infer the existence of a Pre-Existent, Causative, Factor. Now you have yourself stated that you do not know what this factor is. And since this is the case, it becomes absurd for you to argue that logic tends towards atheism.

- Pre-existent - because you yourself have described a state prior to, or before, the initial exapansion called the big bang. You thus accede that there is that which exists before time and space (as YOU describe them), commence. You have thus irretrievably accepted pre-existence. This is cast in iron.

- Causative - [/i]because the laws of motion give us to know that regarding physical things, there would be no expansion or movement without a trigger - and you yourself stated the pre-bang state to be physical.

Thus we have a pre-existent state in which a cause is logically inferred given the laws of motion. This is therefore a pre-existent cause.

With these - your assertion that critical thinking will tend towards atheism has collapsed already, and unbeknownst to you, you are totterring dangerously close to Theism already.

Let us like kindergardten pupils take the time to carefully repeat and absorb the logic -

Pre-existent - because you yourself acceded to pre existence by describing a state existing before the big bang.

Causative - because you yourself in answer to my query described that pre- existent singularity as being physical: and physical things are subject to the laws of motion: which give us to know that the expansion could not occur without a trigger, hence a causative factor.

Thus in summary, a pre-existent causative factor.

Having firmly and logically established that there is indeed a pre-existent cause, I advance now my propositions a step further.

I state to you as a firm rule of logic and based on the law of cause and effect, that that which is an effect is not also simultaenously a cause of itself. This holds firmly true in the material realm of which we speak. Accordingly physical matter could not be its own cause. Nor can physical energy such as that contained in the pre-bang singularity be its own cause. The principle that I thus lay out is logical to wit - once we have established the existence of a pre-existent cause of matter: then that cause could not itself be material. [i]Accordingly that cause must perforce be immaterial.

Thus we are in logical terms a step advanced now as we can logically see the construct of a pre-exisitent immaterial cause.

At this point it is utterly inconceivable to state that critical reasoning does not evince the existence of God as the construct above shows.

I repeat to you that you need to stop attempting to debunk the idea of God as a grey bearded old man sitting in the skies. That idea is a childish construct and is certainly not that which the serious thinker will concern himself with.

Deep Sight:

In everything that you have said, it must be noted that you have not stated exactly why critical thinking must tend towards a non-belief in God.

So long as God is understood to be a pre-existent factor which caused the universe as we know it (and this is the general understanding of what God is) - then in NO wise can you show that critical thinking tends towards a conclusion that such a pre-existent factor does not exist.

We generally do not prove a negative. My conclusion is simply based on the evidence that is available with regards to this God.
We do not know of this pre-existent factor that causes the universe. Such a concept raises so many questions that are either absurd or answered by fantasy. e.g, where does this entity stay? What is the meaning of a mind outside of this universe? What is it made of? How did this entity arise? etc.

Deep Sight:

If anything, not just critical thinking, but common sense as well, would stand on the side of the existnce of a pre-existent causative factor. Indeed YOU YOURSELF have conceded that there would be such a causative factor but you have averred that you do not know what it is. That is fair enough - and that is more than enough for the objective reader to conclude that you have no business discountenancing the existence of God.

No I have not. I have stated that 'causative' factor requires time which as we know began with the Big Bang.

Deep Sight:

It seems to me you have to put aside the notion of a Santa Claus sitting in the clouds as the notion of God that you are trying to debunk: I do not think anything so puerile has ever formed the basis or gammut of my discussions: and I am certainly not prepared to entertain a discussion based on any such childish notion at this time. God, in terms of this particular discourse - is simply a reference to the pre-existent factor that caused existence as we know it. As far as that is the case, then your submissions have already acceded to and accepted the existence of such a factor, given that you have spoken of a pre-singularity state.

In this discussion of ours, I have not referred to such an entity. I wonder how my posts refer to and accept such an entity.
I think this would be a good time for you to actually let us know the features of this God of yours.
Where did I speak of a pre-singularity?

Deep Sight:

The laws of motion give us to know that no motion is observed without a triggering cause or factor - other motion.

Which law of motion is this?

Deep Sight:

This obtains in the physical universe.
You already stated that the singularity was a physical state.
Ergo, you CANNOT seek to exempt it from physical laws.
The inescapable conclusion is that the initial expansion must have had a triggering cause or factor as well: given that it is an expansion of matter: and matter is not known to move without a triggering cause or factor.

No. It is widely accepted that the laws of motion and physics in general as we know it break down at this point.

Deep Sight:

This alone puts a final and decisive lie to any suggestion on your part that the initial expansion may be an uncaused event.
You can in no terms escape or deny this.

Like I said earlier, cause requires a time line and we have no information of such a time line outside this universe.

Deep Sight:

Can I ask you why then you have been able to describe a pre-[/b]expansion state.
You described that state as "hot and dense" - and you stated this to be [b]before the expansion.
Can anybody coherently use words such as "before" and "after" without a construct of time? ? ?

Yes I can in this case based on an understanding of the concept of space-time. Prior to the expansion i.e at the singularity, space and time would be taken as zero.

Deep Sight:

PS: Your responses on the questions of self-existence were simply disastrous, no offence intended. However I have decided to leave them off for now as discussing the concept of self existence with you will clearly take forever. It is easier for me to focus your mind on the clear thrust of the main discussion - and this I will do with the posers I give you. Please address the posers in red above. Thanks.

Maybe they were to you but like I said, I was not a philosophy major. It's possible that you might get more satisfactory answers if the terms used are clearly explained.

Deep Sight:

Given the foregoing, I may deduce that your arguments once addressed with basic logic, infer the existence of a Pre-Existent, Causative, Factor. Now you have yourself stated that you do not know what this factor is. And since this is the case, it becomes absurd for you to argue that logic tends towards atheism.

How did you infer this from my posts?

Deep Sight:

- Pre-existent - because you yourself have described a state prior to, or before, the initial exapansion called the big bang. You thus accede that there is that which exists before time and space (as YOU describe them), commence. You have thus irretrievably accepted pre-existence. This is cast in iron.

Not pre-existence in that sense. Remember that all the matter and energy were together at that point.

Deep Sight:

- Causative - [/i]because the laws of motion give us to know that regarding physical things, there would be no expansion or movement without a trigger - and you yourself stated the pre-bang state to be physical.

Thus we have a pre-existent state in which a cause is logically inferred given the laws of motion. This is therefore a pre-existent cause.

With these - your assertion that critical thinking will tend towards atheism has collapsed already, and unbeknownst to you, you are totterring dangerously close to Theism already.

The laws of motion as we know it do not work at that level.

Deep Sight:

Let us like kindergardten pupils take the time to carefully repeat and absorb the logic -
Pre-existent - because you yourself acceded to pre existence by describing a state existing before the big bang.

You seem to mean absence of matter and energy when you use the word "pre-existent" but this is not what I'm saying.

Deep Sight:

Causative - because you yourself in answer to my query described that pre- existent singularity as being physical: and physical things are subject to the laws of motion: which give us to know that the expansion could not occur without a trigger, hence a causative factor.

Thus in summary, a pre-existent causative factor.

Having firmly and logically established that there is indeed a pre-existent cause, I advance now my propositions a step further.

Sorry but you haven't. Please see the above reasons.

Deep Sight:

I state to you as a firm rule of logic and based on the law of cause and effect, that that which is an effect is not also simultaenously a cause of itself. This holds firmly true in the material realm of which we speak. Accordingly physical matter could not be its own cause. Nor can physical energy such as that contained in the pre-bang singularity be its own cause. The principle that I thus lay out is logical to wit - once we have established the existence of a pre-existent cause of matter: then that cause could not itself be material. [i]Accordingly that cause must perforce be immaterial.

What time-line are you using to explain this cause and effect?

Deep Sight:

Thus we are in logical terms a step advanced now as we can logically see the construct of a pre-exisitent immaterial cause.

At this point it is utterly inconceivable to state that critical reasoning does not evince the existence of God as the construct above shows.

I'm don't see how your above statement follows when one considers the objections I've made.

Deep Sight:

I repeat to you that you need to stop attempting to debunk the idea of God as a grey bearded old man sitting in the skies. That idea is a childish construct and is certainly not that which the serious thinker will concern himself with.

I repeat that I've not referred to this sort of entity during our discussion.

thehomer:

Which law of motion is this?

These laws of motion -

1.First law: Every body remains in a state of rest or uniform motion (constant velocity) unless it is acted upon by an external unbalanced force. [2][3][4] This means that in the absence of a non-zero net force, the center of mass of a body either remains at rest, or moves at a constant speed in a straight line.

2.Second law: A body of mass m subject to a force F undergoes an acceleration a that has the same direction as the force and a magnitude that is directly proportional to the force and inversely proportional to the mass, i.e., F = ma. Alternatively, the total force applied on a body is equal to the time derivative of linear momentum of the body.

3.Third law: The mutual forces of action and reaction between two bodies are equal, opposite and collinear. This means that whenever a first body exerts a force F on a second body, the second body exerts a force −F on the first body. F and −F are equal in magnitude and opposite in direction. This law is sometimes referred to as the action-reaction law, with F called the "action" and −F the "reaction". The action and the reaction are simultaneous.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_laws_of_motion

Now you need to prove to me in very specific terms exactly why the relevant law of motion which requires a trigger ('F' - Force) in order for motion to occur should not apply to that which you have already stated is physical.

In saying this I am very mindful that there are cases where these laws work out differently, but I state to you that each such case must be properly rationalized. I am yet to see the specific rationalization for exempting the initial expansion from the laws of motion as stated above: and please note that I refer specifically to the law which requires 'F" - Force, as in a trigger, in order to initiate motion.

THAT particular rule of motion is NOT a rule that breaks down in time, and this is a rule I can state to you applies in every circumstance, for there is simply nothing that just begins to move without a trigger. That is a categorical logical impossibility and stating otherwise will amount to a belief in magic. That will surely make you sound as incredible as the religionist you like to criticize.

thehomer:


The laws of motion as we know it do not work at that level.

This is an escapist cop-out which we can only countenance when you specifically rationalize why exactly the particular law stated will not apply at that stage.

I am very well aware that laws do vary, or more specifically, the application and results of laws do vary at different existential stages within the universe, but i state to you that there are certain laws which are definitively constant irrespective: and the specific law of motion I have indicated here is one such law.

It is not enough for you to broadly state that "the laws do not work at that level" - - - you must rather show exactly why they do not work and what operates in lieu of such laws at that level. And in this I remind you that I refer to the principle that force or a trigger is required for the motion of mass. I state to you that this particular principle is universal and there can be no circumstance in which it does not apply for the simple reason that nothing may move without a trigger. It is an adamantine and constant law: and the reasons that are advanced regarding the breakdown of certain applications of laws at certain stages, cannot operate to obviate this law of motion because it is a cardinal law on which the motion of all matter is hinged. So if you wish to create a special pleading, by all means do so, but it is incumbent on you to adduce clear proof showing that this specific law does not apply at that level.

Anything short of that will amount to a belief in magic - - - hey presto! abracadabra! open sesame, the universe starts moving!

I am sure you will not allow your self to be reduced to the level of one who advocates voodoo as the source of the big bang?

In the post above i believe we are addressing the core question to wit: is it logical to believe in God given what we know of the commencement of the universe? Everything written in this thread shows that belief in a pre-existent causative factor is very logical indeed, and that factor is what people understand when they use the word "God."

You have not in any way shown that "critical thinking" will tend towards a disbelief in God - unless of course you are speaking of Santa Claus.

Rather it is obvious that your "critical thinking" has led you to become a champion of a meaningless, magical, purposeless universe, springing from nothing in a voodoo-istic fashion. That is not critical trhinking in the least: and if it is: please dissociate me from that brand of "critical thinking."

Anyhow, I just want to say that there are many untenable things that you have said in this thread which I propose to take up in a new thread so as not to lose the tangent of the current discussion.

Particularly with regard to the concepts of time and self existence.

thehomer:

Such a concept raises so many questions that are either absurd or answered by fantasy. e.g, where does this entity stay?

Where DOES THIS ENTITY STAY? ? ? ? ? ? ! ! ! ! ! ! !

Sorry Mr. Homer, but this really proves that I am correct when I state that you are still battling with the concept of a Santa Claus God despite your denials to the contrary.

What do you mean "where does this entity stay? ? ?"

You may note that you have not seen me use the word "he" at all in my discussions regarding God in this thread? That is exactly because God is an intangible transcendental reality and not to be described as a "he." Nor should we begin to look for the home or office address for such a construct as you are attempting to do. Have I not laboured hard enough to make you understand that we are not discussing  an ol' granpa in the skies?

This question of yours is particularly dis-spiriting and discouraging. It gives me a terrible sense of futility about this discussion.

I seek to discuss the primordial uncaused cause of all existence and you are asking me Santa Claus questions such as "where does he stay."

Do you expect that that which caused this universe and this existence to be would perhaps be something that you could come across smoking a pipe in a mud-hut beside the road to your village? Or perhaps you hope to encounter him strolling on the third mainland bridge.

Dont worry, I know where he is  - its christmas after all, so he must he on his way down your chimney with his gifts, and his reindeer parked outside your house waiting to take off.

Please.

Where did I speak of a pre-singularity?

I did not say pre-singularity. I said you spoke of a pre-expansion state.

I stated that you are yet to show how exactly critical thinking leads to a non-belief in God.

You responded  -

thehomer:

We generally do not prove a negative.

I agree that we do not prove a negative. However you must realise that your statement that "critical thinking leads to a non-belief in God" - IS A POSITIVE STATEMENT and not a negative statement.

If you simply said "I dont believe in God" - that would be a negative statement for which you needn't adduce proof.

But when you make an addittional claim - namely that "critical thinking leads to a non-belief in God" - you have made a very positive statement declaring that critical thinking leads in a certain direction - and that, you MUST prove.

To do this you must lay out the essentials of existence, and then apply critical thinking to those essentials to draw up a logical conclusion that shows that critical thinking leads towards the tendency that you positively claimed it does.

Otherwise, you must concede that your statement is nothing but water in a basket.

Deep Sight:

These laws of motion -

1.First law: Every body remains in a state of rest or uniform motion (constant velocity) unless it is acted upon by an external unbalanced force. [2][3][4] This means that in the absence of a non-zero net force, the center of mass of a body either remains at rest, or moves at a constant speed in a straight line.

2.Second law: A body of mass m subject to a force F undergoes an acceleration a that has the same direction as the force and a magnitude that is directly proportional to the force and inversely proportional to the mass, i.e., F = ma. Alternatively, the total force applied on a body is equal to the time derivative of linear momentum of the body.

3.Third law: The mutual forces of action and reaction between two bodies are equal, opposite and collinear. This means that whenever a first body exerts a force F on a second body, the second body exerts a force −F on the first body. F and −F are equal in magnitude and opposite in direction. This law is sometimes referred to as the action-reaction law, with F called the "action" and −F the "reaction". The action and the reaction are simultaneous.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_laws_of_motion

Now you need to prove to me in very specific terms exactly why the relevant law of motion which requires a trigger ('F' - Force) in order for motion to occur should not apply to that which you have already stated is physical.

In saying this I am very mindful that there are cases where these laws work out differently, but I state to you that each such case must be properly rationalized. I am yet to see the specific rationalization for exempting the initial expansion from the laws of motion as stated above: and please note that I refer specifically to the law which requires 'F" - Force, as in a trigger, in order to initiate motion.

Those laws function within this universe under specific conditions. Those laws do not function at the scale of the entire universe until matter becomes available and is moving below a certain velocity. So the laws do not function under those conditions. Also, how do you wish to apply those laws without time, mass (matter) and length?

Deep Sight:

THAT particular rule of motion is NOT a rule that breaks down in time, and this is a rule I can state to you applies in every circumstance, for there is simply nothing that just begins to move without a trigger. That is a categorical logical impossibility and stating otherwise will amount to a belief in magic. That will surely make you sound as incredible as the religionist you like to criticize.

No it does. You simply need to understand some concepts in basic physics.

Deep Sight:

This is an escapist cop-out which we can only countenance when you specifically rationalize why exactly the particular law stated will not apply at that stage.

It is not a cop-out, it is a fact that has been demonstrated experimentally.

Deep Sight:

I am very well aware that laws do vary, or more specifically, the application and results of laws do vary at different existential stages within the universe, but i state to you that there are certain laws which are definitively constant irrespective: and the specific law of motion I have indicated here is one such law.

No it isn't. You need to read further down that article on Wikipedia to see its limitations.

Deep Sight:

It is not enough for you to broadly state that "the laws do not work at that level" - - - you must rather show exactly why they do not work and what operates in lieu of such laws at that level. And in this I remind you that I refer to the principle that force or a trigger is required for the motion of mass. I state to you that this particular principle is universal and there can be no circumstance in which it does not apply for the simple reason that nothing may move without a trigger. It is an adamantine and constant law: and the reasons that are advanced regarding the breakdown of certain applications of laws at certain stages, cannot operate to obviate this law of motion because it is a cardinal law on which the motion of all matter is hinged. So if you wish to create a special pleading, by all means do so, but it is incumbent on you to adduce clear proof showing that this specific law does not apply at that level.

Anything short of that will amount to a belief in magic - - - hey presto! abracadabra! open sesame, the universe starts moving!

I am sure you will not allow your self to be reduced to the level of one who advocates voodoo as the source of the big bang?

You are equivocating on your use of the word "force" above. Force according to Newton's laws is the product of mass and acceleration. Mass (from matter) requires the temperature during the expansion to have cooled sufficiently for matter to form. And, at the time of the singularity, time was zero. So what force (trigger) are you referring to? Is this some other mass or time line outside of this universe that you have access to?

I think I've demonstrated why they do not work in this situation.

Deep Sight:

In the post above i believe we are addressing the core question to wit: is it logical to believe in God given what we know of the commencement of the universe? Everything written in this thread shows that belief in a pre-existent causative factor is very logical indeed, and that factor is what people understand when they use the word "God."

No it isn't. We are yet to agree on the concept of causation since you have not stated the time line to which you wish to apply this concept.

Deep Sight:

You have not in any way shown that "critical thinking" will tend towards a disbelief in God - unless of course you are speaking of Santa Claus.

Rather it is obvious that your "critical thinking" has led you to become a champion of a meaningless, magical, purposeless universe, springing from nothing in a voodoo-istic fashion. That is not critical trhinking in the least: and if it is: please dissociate me from that brand of "critical thinking."

Again, I have not introduced any entities but you have. One thing you need to realize is that we (humans) generate our own purpose.
And I'm not the one proposing that the universe sprung from nothing but it's what you are implying with your introduction of this poorly defined God (who is some mind that causes everything from what?).

Deep Sight:

Anyhow, I just want to say that there are many untenable things that you have said in this thread which I propose to take up in a new thread so as not to lose the tangent of the current discussion.

Particularly with regard to the concepts of time and self existence.

Ok then. Ready when you are.

Deep Sight:

I stated that you are yet to show how exactly critical thinking leads to a non-belief in God.

You responded  -

I agree that we do not prove a negative. However you must realise that your statement that "critical thinking leads to a non-belief in God" - IS A POSITIVE STATEMENT and not a negative statement.

If you simply said "I dont believe in God" - that would be a negative statement for which you needn't adduce proof.

But when you make an addittional claim - namely that "critical thinking leads to a non-belief in God" - you have made a very positive statement declaring that critical thinking leads in a certain direction - and that, you MUST prove.

To do this you must lay out the essentials of existence, and then apply critical thinking to those essentials to draw up a logical conclusion that shows that critical thinking leads towards the tendency that you positively claimed it does.

Otherwise, you must concede that your statement is nothing but water in a basket.

Due to the problems with defining a God, I usually try to find out what a person means by God.
According to you,

God is understood to be a pre-existent factor which caused the universe as we know it (and this is the general understanding of what God is)

This was why I asked if one could consider a physical law as God or if one could consider the singularity as God.

I also recall that you once mentioned something of a mind outside the universe. This concept is quite absurd.

With regards to demonstrating the effects of critical thinking, I thought it's been demonstrated on this thread. What I'm saying is that with the required background knowledge in various fields such as biology, physics, anthropology, psychology and others, plus the use of tools such as logic and reasoning, one would tend to not believe in Gods as they are generally conceived.

Biology gives us theories such as evolution with its implication about our origins on earth from simpler life forms over long periods of time, physics with its numerous fields such as astrophysics gives us information about matter, its origin and contents. Anthropology gives us some insights into the way human cultures and societies are organized. Psychology with its own insights into the way we think. Having knowledge in these fields and others of course, tend to make religious beliefs and lots of concepts of God redundant.

@ homer >>> so you can say we don't prove a negative >>> then stab me in the back by propounding the fact that my quote (shown below) is wrong

You do not prove nor explicate a non-belief

i'm waiting for you to prove to me that you do not believe that fire harms >>> if i'm correct you understand this to be a negative statement, not so ?

^^^ The burden is on you to burn him with fire.

thehomer:

I also recall that you once mentioned something of a mind outside the universe. This concept is quite absurd.

I thought it's been demonstrated on this thread. What I'm saying is that with the required background knowledge in various fields such as biology, physics, anthropology, psychology and others, plus the use of tools such as logic and reasoning, one would tend to not believe in Gods as they are generally conceived.

Having knowledge in these fields and others of course, tend to make religious beliefs and lots of concepts of God redundant.

CAVEAT : The following skit put my thoughts in focus

@ homer >>> those statements you made will make Socrates roll over in his grave >>> in mock laughter

thehomer:

Yes it's biased towards statements that are verifiably true.*1

Why not? I ask because this person has free will and wishes to exercise it this way.*2

Whether or not it was evident, only one of them was actually true.

Truth is relative to what, falsehood?*3

People such as?*4

Whether or not one believes a statement is true would not stop the statement if true from affecting such a person when necessary.*5

*1 >>> and are falsifiable and therefore relative >>> do take a course in the history and philosophy of science

*2 >>> so what >>> his free-will isn't absolute >>> hence determinism

*3 >>> yeah

*4 >>> go and read GWR 2009 jor !!! >>> dat is an evidence i gave you >>> must i do all the dirty work

*5 >>> however it affects how a statement is regarded and the means by which it is verified >>> you are aware that logical positivism (which you effuse) is a position that isn't verifiable

Deep Sight:

^^^ The burden is on you to burn him with fire.

lol

Uyi Iredia:

@ homer >>> so you can say we don't prove a negative >>> then stab me in the back by propounding the fact that my quote (shown below) is wrong

You do not prove nor explicate a non-belief

i'm waiting for you to prove to me that you do not believe that fire harms >>> if i'm correct you understand this to be a negative statement, not so ?

What quote?

One can demonstrate that one does not believe in hobbits but can one demonstrate that hobbits do not exist in the universe? You see these are two different things. Demonstrating a belief or non-belief is different from demonstrating the occurrence of phenomena or existence of certain objects.

Deep Sight:

^^^ The burden is on you to burn him with fire.

Ha I'm already on fire. What you need now is Jet A1.

Uyi Iredia:

CAVEAT : The following skit put my thoughts in focus

@ homer >>> those statements you made will make Socrates roll over in his grave >>> in mock laughter

He may laugh but I won't because he did not have the information that we currently have.

Uyi Iredia:

*1 >>> and are falsifiable and therefore relative >>> do take a course in the history and philosophy of science

*2 >>> so what >>> his free-will isn't absolute >>> hence determinism

*3 >>> yeah

*4 >>> go and read GWR 2009 jor !!! >>> dat is an evidence i gave you >>> must i do all the dirty work

*5 >>> however it affects how a statement is regarded and the means by which it is verified >>> you are aware that logical positivism (which you effuse) is a position that isn't verifiable

lol

Is this in response to my posts? If so, which ones?

thehomer:

He may laugh but I won't because he did not have the information that we currently have.

nope >>> but without his efforts and others similar to and copied from his >>> we would not have the information we have >>> he is a symbol of free-thinking >>> he wasn't atheist

thehomer:

Is this in response to my posts? If so, which ones?

your response to my last post >>> i expect you to know !

thehomer:

What quote?

One can demonstrate that one does not believe in hobbits but can one demonstrate that hobbits do not exist in the universe? You see these are two different things. Demonstrating a belief or non-belief is different from demonstrating the occurrence of phenomena or existence of certain objects.

quote >>> "You do not prove (nor explicate) a non-belief"

that's long talk >>> all i ask is that you demonstrate a non-belief

Uyi Iredia:

nope >>> but without his efforts and others similar to and copied from his >>> we would not have the information we have >>> he is a symbol of free-thinking >>> he wasn't atheist

This is an appeal to an improper authority. Socrates did not have the information that we currently do have.

Uyi Iredia:

your response to my last post >>> i expect you to know !

It's difficult responding to your posts with my original posts absent from view while I'm composing a response. You also use some numbering method which makes it even more difficult to follow in this case.

Uyi Iredia:

quote >>> "You do not prove (nor explicate) a non-belief"
that's long talk >>> all i ask is that you demonstrate a non-belief

Person A meets Person B who says he does not believe that fire will harm him.
Person A asks for evidence and Person B promptly ignites a lighter and hands it to Person A.
Person B then proceeds to hold his palm in the flame of the lighter.
What has Person B demonstrated? He has demonstrated that he does not believe fire will harm him. This is irrespective of whether the fire actually does harm him or not.

thehomer:

This is an appeal to an improper authority. Socrates did not have the information that we currently do have.*1

It's difficult responding to your posts with my original posts absent from view while I'm composing a response. You also use some numbering method which makes it even more difficult to follow in this case.*2

Person A meets Person B who says he does not believe that fire will harm him.
Person A asks for evidence and Person B promptly ignites a lighter and hands it to Person A.
Person B then proceeds to hold his palm in the flame of the lighter.
What has Person B demonstrated? He has demonstrated that he does not believe fire will harm him. This is irrespective of whether the fire actually does harm him or not.*3

*1 >>> i didn't make the argmentum ad vericundiam fallacy >>> Socrates is, a well respected figure >>> his dialectic method (which you use) >>> is one of the tools used in critical thought >>> and i am not bothered with current information >>> in my last post i simply pointed out that without him and people like him >>> we would not have the information we have >>> where does improper authority come in all of this ?

*2 >>> the numbering method is supposed to clarify what points (you make) i'm tackling >>> i've modified my post >>> u made me work

*3 >>> semantics again >>> Person B has not demonstrated that he does not believe that fir harms >>> you mus understand that a non-belief is passive in nature >>> it doesn't have a determinate stance >>> as far as i am concerned Person B has demonstrated thus : He believes that fire does not harm >>> this is all about lexicology >>> note that Person B brought the fire under his palm (apparently at a safe distance) >>> doing that is as a result of a belief/thesis/posit/plausit Person B has

>>> prove to me that Person B DOES NOT believe fire can harm >>> prove the non-belief >>> i hope i have hit the nail on the head

Uyi Iredia:

*1 >>> i didn't make the argmentum ad vericundiam fallacy >>> Socrates is, a well respected figure >>> his dialectic method (which you use) >>> is one of the tools used in critical thought >>> and i am not bothered with current information >>> in my last post i simply pointed out that without him and people like him >>> we would not have the information we have >>> where does improper authority come in all of this ?

One cannot conclude that progress would have been impossible without Socrates existing at a certain point in time.
Whether or not Socrates was an atheist is still irrelevant in this discussion.
Critical thinking also requires the use of the best information available when making a decision. Socrates did not have the information we currently do have yet you refer to him as the best authority we have when deciding current issues with better information available to inform our decisions.

Uyi Iredia:

*2 >>> the numbering method is supposed to clarify what points (you make) i'm tackling >>> i've modified my post >>> u made me work

Which post did you modify?

Uyi Iredia:

*3 >>> semantics again >>> Person B has not demonstrated that he does not believe that fir harms >>> you mus understand that a non-belief is passive in nature >>> it doesn't have a determinate stance >>> as far as i am concerned Person B has demonstrated thus : He believes that fire does not harm >>> this is all about lexicology >>> note that Person B brought the fire under his palm (apparently at a safe distance) >>> doing that is as a result of a belief/thesis/posit/plausit Person B has

>>> prove to me that Person B DOES NOT believe fire can harm >>> prove the non-belief >>> i hope i have hit the nail on the head

Please read through what I posted. Person B did not believe that fire would harm him so he stuck his hand in it. Whether or not it harms him is beside the issue.
Person B has stated that fire does not harm him and to demonstrate this belief, he stuck his hand in the flame.
A passerby asks "Why did Person B stick his hand in the flame?" What would be your response?

thehomer:

One cannot conclude that progress would have been impossible without Socrates existing at a certain point in time.
Whether or not Socrates was an atheist is still irrelevant in this discussion.
Critical thinking also requires the use of the best information available when making a decision. Socrates did not have the information we currently do have yet you refer to him as the best authority we have when deciding current issues with better information available to inform our decisions.
*1
Which post did you modify?*2

Please read through what I posted. Person B did not believe that fire would harm him so he stuck his hand in it. Whether or not it harms him is beside the issue.
Person B has stated that fire does not harm him and to demonstrate this belief, he stuck his hand in the flame.
A passerby asks "Why did Person B stick his hand in the flame?" What would be your response?*3

*1 >>> why can't one conclude this ? (any less than without Darwin we would not know the mechanics of Human Evolution) also note that i referred to his method before referring to him >>> the issue of a being as God is (or is concieved of) isn't one that deals on better information. also note that i never referred to him as the best authority (if i did show me where/how) >>> but as the forebearer of the information we have

One doesn't need to know all things to be sure of certain facts.

*2 >>> kindly check comment #86

*3 >>> i have, and i have brooded over this issue. i assert that you play the semantics card >>> you contradict yourself >>> see what you said

Person B has stated that fire does not harm him and to demonstrate this belief

he is demonstrating a belief >>> question? why doesn't Person b demonstrate that he does not believe >>> Person B is demonstrating a belief not a non-belief. if i were there i would say that he believes fire doesn't harm. >>> prove that 2 +2 ≠ 3