Kokesh on Atheism + Libertarians

[Elfshadow]

Ok, but now you are trying to talk about using an irrational explanation for an observable effect (the Big Bang) Why assume there had to be an instigator. Why assume this "creator" had to be intelligent. What made the "creator"? You are opening up an entirely different can of worms. I think that the origins of the universe is a bad forum to discuss creationism. I think a better media in which to knock ideas back and forth is the creation of first life.

Many people jump to the conclusion that if one creator made the universe, then that same creator also made life. An easy way to virtually disprove this would be to reproduce the creation of life under conditions that replicated similar conditions to the earth many billions of years ago. Seems pretty easy enough to be honest.

The study of the creation of life from inorganic material is called Abiogenesis and a brief explanation can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

Your assuming that I hold any of those posistions. I'm saying you can't disprove the role of a creator, what ever for it takes, in the universe. I'm an agonistic. I don't believe in creatinism, but at the same time you can't disprove, at the moment, something might have started the whole thing off. There is litterly nothing you can do eliminate the posibilty of a creator in some shape or form. Even if science can deduce and prove what caused the big bang, well in that case what existed before that? And before that?

By the way, even if you can prove how the first replicating molecules came into existince, can you disprove the possablity of an something guiding events? Remeber this is coming form someone that does not believe in a god or a creator. I think the whole thing is a mess.

 

[Sola_Fide]

Haven't I already admitted that we can't really ever know anything for sure?

Do you know for sure that we can never know anything for sure?

 

[Athena]

Do you know for sure that we can never know anything for sure?

Haven't I already answered that? No, I don't/can't know that for sure, either.

 

[Sola_Fide]

Haven't I already answered that? No, I don't/can't know that for sure, either.

Then why are you saying it?

Why are you saying something is sure (that we can never know anything for sure), if nothing can be known for sure?

 

[Sola_Fide]

I mean dude... If we can't get past this elementary contradiction here, the rest of the conversation is not going to be good. You understand the contradiction right?

 

[Athena]

I mean dude... If we can't get past this elementary contradiction here, the rest of the conversation is not going to be good. You understand the contradiction right?

It can't necessarily be known whether things can be know. This leaves open the possibility that things can be know. No contradiction.

 

[Sola_Fide]

It can't necessarily be known whether things can be know.

Can it be known that it can't necessarily be known whether things can be known?

 

[BrittanySligar]

It can't necessarily be known whether things can be know. This leaves open the possibility that things can be know. No contradiction.

And aquabuddah is somehow trying to assert that his agnosticism somehow justifies his religious beliefs, which he has still failed to illustrate for us.

 

[Elfshadow]

Can it be known that it can't necessarily be known whether things can be known?

Your Trolling skills are large oh great one.

 

[BrittanySligar]

Your Trolling skills are large oh great one.

He's not trolling. He's just avoiding having to answer to his beliefs, hiding under the veil of agnosticism.

 

[Sola_Fide]

And aquabuddah is somehow trying to state that his agnosticism somehow justifies his religious beliefs, which he has still failed to illustrate for us.

At last count, I there were about 15 questions I asked you to which you didn't respond (and cannot respond to).

 

[bluesc]

This whole thread was doomed for failure the second it was created.

Cool avatar, btw. Make me one of Ayn Rand shitting rep since everyone loves me so much.

 

[Elfshadow]

At last count, I there were about 15 questions I asked you to which you didn't respond (and cannot respond to).

Out of curiosity what questions??

 

[Sola_Fide]

Your Trolling skills are large oh great one.

Oh definitely not trolling. Asking foundational questions that everyone must answer if they seek to be rational.

 

[Elfshadow]

Oh definitely not trolling. Asking foundational questions that everyone must answer if they seek to be rational.

Which version of rational?

 

[Sola_Fide]

You continue to try to justify your position by questioning the nature of knowledge.

Agnostic: A person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena.

Idiot: A person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything, including material phenomena. (my own definition).

Yes, observation is subject to human sensory input. If you argue that sensory input does not provide insight into our universe, then your position is that nothing is knowable. I happen to believe that sensory input does provide insight into our universe. I believe this because natural phenomena observed via sensory input also holds true when measured via instruments, often at atomic, molecular, and macro levels alike. You keep repeating yourself as though you are saying something profound and/or justifies your religious beliefs.

So...we know things by sensation? So you incorporate induction into your system? Why? Don't you understand the fallacy of induction?

Since you do not have universal experience, and since your sense perceptions are fallible, you can never build a universal proposition about anything. Did you sense that we know things only through sensory input? How do you do that?

What is reasoning process by which you have a sensation and then that translates to knowledge? Please write it out so I can follow it. You see a red car....then you know it? What is "car"? What is "red"? Did you sense the concept of "car" or "red"? How do you sense concepts? What did the concept of "car-ness" taste like? Did the concept of "red-ness" smell like a steak? Where do you get categories from sensations? What differentiates "car" from anything else in your stream of vision? What if the vision of a car that you had was an hallucination? You sense hallucinations too, right? What makes the hallucination different than the "real" sensation? Do you sense the difference?

 

[Sola_Fide]

You continue to try to justify your position by questioning the nature of knowledge.

Agnostic: A person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena.

What is "material phenomena" and how did you come to know about? By sensation? So how can you ever test your sensations against the "real world" if the only thing that is ever present to the mind are your sensations?


This is supposed to be a recipe for knowledge???

 

[tttppp]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism

Atheism defies logic because it presupposes an eternal non-created Universe. How can one even begin to use reason and logic to assert such a position? Neither ontologically, or deontogically, or pretty much any standard of logic can you assert that position. Everything we know of has ever been has a beginning and an end and a creator. How do you explain the Natural Laws? I can explain it pretty well using the Clockwork theory as well as the Computer Programmer theory. What have you got?

The only way I can logically think the universe came into existence is if the universe always existed and was not created by anyone. The only rule of the universe is zero=infinity. In infinity, there is no beginning or end, and therefore no creator. We know that there is no way to create something from absolutely nothing. So the only way for us to exist is if everything equals nothing.

Please explain to me how God created the universe out of nothing. Please show me how there is logic to God.

 

[otherone]

SIGH.
If one wishes to play the 'logic' game, then one must conclude that either:
A) God exists
or
B) Nothing exists.
Personally, I agree with Aquinas; that nothing exists, because God does not exist. Frankly, logic is an inherently flawed system.

Even if there were no human intellects, things could be said to be true because of their relation to the divine intellect. But if, by an impossible supposition [per impossibile], intellect did not exist and things did continue to exist, then the essentials of truth would in no way remain.

 

[BrittanySligar]

What is "material phenomena" and how did you come to know about? By sensation? So how can you ever test your sensations against the "real world" if the only thing that is ever present to the mind are your sensations?


This is supposed to be a recipe for knowledge???

You are taking every question and turning it into a discussion about the nature of knowledge. You are avoiding the subject at hand. If you just plan on continuing, we can end the discussion, and you can go back to your life of not considering anything, because after all, we can't know anything. You will not debate anything, you will not observe anything, you will not know anyone, and you will not see anything. Because you, in your infinite wisdom, know that nothing is knowable. (The very statement is a contradiction in terms.)

Let's put the discussion about the nature of what is knowable aside, as it is not pertinent to the subject matter.

How can the state of "believing" something be the default position? By claiming something other than atheism is the default position, you must provide your reasoning.

Also, you have still yet to articulate your religious views.