Uyi Iredia:

*1 >>> any one of them - preferably an agency or a method
>>> now answer the question >>> please ! do not run away from it

Uyi Iredia:

*2 >>> answer to your question: I do not believe it - however I believe it is possible (it might just be that it does not) >>> now answer my question (prove ABSOLUTELY that beheading kills)

Uyi Iredia:

*3 >>> this is a redundant question >>> I already (preempted and) answered this question in #148 point 14

Uyi Iredia:

>>> now answer my question on numbers being human constructs >>> recall that the root of this part of our debate starts from these assertions (check #125 point 6 to confirm - NOTE THE BOLDED PARTS)

Uyi Iredia:

*4 >>> again you are not serious >>> highlighting differences_which is what you did_is separate from presenting definitions >>> define truth and knowledge or simply refuse to answer my question >>> otherwise I will assume that u cannot defend your posit that truth differs from knowledge

Wiktionary:
Truth: 4. True facts, genuine depiction or statements of reality.
Knowledge: 3. Awareness of a particular fact or situation; a state of having been informed or made aware of something.

Dictionary.com]
Truth: 2. conformity with fact or reality; verity
Knowledge: 1. acquaintance with facts, truths, or principles, as from study or investigation; general erudition
[/quote]

As you can see, they are both different. I'm surprised that you as a self acclaimed philosophy student does not know this.


[quote author=Uyi Iredia:

*5 >>> please show me where you have demonstrated 
truths ? >>> if some truths do not need to be demonstrated physically to be accepted, what are the other means through which they are demonstrated ?

Uyi Iredia:

*6 >>> demonstrate how A=A is true and how 1+1=2 is true >>> all you did was to make a statement (which you assume I would take as true)

Uyi Iredia:

*7 >>> you are evading my question (riddles) yet again >>> this time by requesting that I open another thread

Uyi Iredia:

*8 >>> all you mention are truth statements

Uyi Iredia:

*9 >>> now I challenge u to prove what we both agree on >>> honor my request that u define knowledge and truth *after all free-thinking involves asking questions to gain knowledge*

Uyi Iredia:

*10 >>> you are still being naughty and you continue with the fallacy of hasty generalization >>> embellishing your fallacy by saying 

". . . is a good sign that you'll PROBABLY simply repeat that somewhere else. "

Uyi Iredia:

The term 'probably' equivocates to 'definitely' by your atrocious inference >>> I still await you on that topic though;  and I hope that you grace the topic (I do not post trifles on weighty matters)

Uyi Iredia:

I will go back and treat it >>> I was indeed mistaken to have assumed it locked

thehomer:

But not machine? Ok. If there was an agency or a method, then it would not be true [b]when it is available. But, do you remember the context? Here it is to refresh your memory #119. Note the time period.
[/b]*1

Here again, you agree with me while trying not to seem to by including that "it might just be that it does not". You want evidence that decapitation kills people? Are you being serious?
*2

What on earth is a redundant question? You really like to make things up as you go along.*3


And what is the relevance of whether or not they're human constructs?*4


Now you want definitions. You could have simply consulted wiktionary or dictionary.com.
I'll give you two of each that you're free to play with.

As you can see, they are both different. I'm surprised that you as a self acclaimed philosophy student does not know this.
*5

Logically.*6


The first is logical. The second is mathematical. If you really cannot agree with even the basic foundations of logic that implies your rejection of logical axioms which also means you're wasting my time. I generally engage in discussions based on the assumption that the other discussant wishes to discuss using logical axioms.*7


What is its relevance here?*8


And truth statements are <surprise, surprise> true. *9


I notice that yet again, you are unable to demonstrate the fallacy you've accused me of. I've defined the two words above. You could have simply consulted a dictionary.

On the contrary, the fact that you've consistently done this on this thread and on others without taking correction is a good indicator that you're likely to continue. I'll change my mind when I see you rectify your confabulations of simply pasting the names of fallacies without demonstrating how your claim actually merits such an attachment.


That was not an equivocation but a reasonable logical inference based on your observed past behaviour which it seems you're yet to rectify.*10


Your attempted attacks on logic in this thread means that I might of course choose to no longer continue prolonging this discussion because once you start questioning basic axioms of logic as though they are arbitrary, it appears as though you do not wish to have a discussion based on logic. And my time is far too precious to waste on a person who does not wish to have a discussion with some logical basis.
On a side note, I also notice how you simply ignore responses that clearly show the problems with your view e.g #152 *11

thehomer:

Wow just wow. Is this how you wish to go? So you take Socrates as an authority and not an authority? This of course fails the law of non-contradiction in logic. In this same discussion, you consider Socrates to both be an authority and [b]not an authority. And here ladies and gentlemen is Schrodinger's Socrates.[/b]*1


So this is the new tactic you wish to use to evade being called out on your accusations of fallacy. Simply read my response. I point out to you that two people can believe mutually exclusive things (which of course means they can't both be right) and you present a different analogy i.e your "Hey ! Uyi, darkness can shine forth" and attack that instead.


See above. Now please demonstrate how I committed the fallacies you claimed.*2


Again, you wish to shift and evade. This is getting tiresome. I'll drag you back. Recall what you said here #145. That part of the discussion was on whether or not his death mattered to him. I hope you also notice the sort of shift you're making. You're shifting from a person's belief which can change to that which is written in a retrieval medium.*3


And here you still go ahead to present your wrong idea again by as usual modifying your argument on the fly in this case by inserting "the understanding of". This of course is why I keep repeating to you that[size=14pt]Knowledge is different from truth[/size]. Your knowledge depends on the truth not the other way around.*4


Oh but it is. Please clearly demonstrate how I committed the fallacy you accused me of. You've done this several times and you're yet to clearly demonstrate [b]a single one.[/b]*5


Did you simply alter my statement and still attribute it to me? If you did, it is very bad of you. How could you insert that "NOT" in my statement without notification and still try to go ahead and respond to it as though that was what I said?
On the other hand, superstitious atheists do not apply critical thinking so what? It seems you're still confused about what atheism is.*6


What part did you disagree with? Not fully agreeing does not show the part you disagree with.
And here is your usual cop-out when asked to demonstrate your unverified accusations.


Your reply is meaningless because that is not what a belief is in the English Language which we are using to communicate. Simply look up the meaning of belief in three English dictionaries and point out the one that shows what you're saying otherwise, you're simply misusing words and defining them as you go along.*7


And here you further manifest your confusion. When you accept something as factual, that means a statement framing it evaluates to true in your thoughts. If you accept something as true, that means it [b]can be false. Yet you go ahead and say a belief cannot be false. This is yet another logical contradiction in your statement.[/b]*8

thehomer:

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?



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'.



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



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.



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



Well subscribe away.



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



Demand away.



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



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.



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



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



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?



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



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



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



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.



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



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.



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?



How do you speak of the commencement of time itself?



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?



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.



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



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.



Then what were you saying about some creator creating everything?



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



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'.



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



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



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



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?



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



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




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.




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.

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.



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?

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?

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

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.

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.



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



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



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.

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.

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.

  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.

   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."

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

  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.



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.



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?

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.

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.

It is the experience of time, and the behaviour of bodies and light within time that you can analyse the way Einstein did.



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.

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.



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.



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.



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. . .?

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.



I did not presume that.

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

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?



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.



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.



Might I ask what is meaningful to you?

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



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

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

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?



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!

Rhino.4dm:
@ nuclear boy.

Why must it be that whenever you said there is God you will be accuse of not properly using your free thinking ability?

Must conclusion of there is no God be at the apex of free/critical thinking? Why not otherwise?

cant i arrive at God with my critical and free thinking ability? Why must it be perceive otherwise?