zedvictor4

Kalam: This so that so there.

1. What is God and what was it's cause?

2. So we assume that everything including God begins.

3. We assume that the universe and more appropriately matter began to exist.

4. Therefore we assume that the universe and more appropriately matter has a cause.

5. And the notion of transcendency is what it is. A fanciful higher brow word intended to define something that is only notional.

6. And arguments such as Kalam attempt to give validity to notional assumptions. Which in terms of knowledge leaves us still firmly stuck at the beginning of something without a clue.

Hope all goes well for you.

I admire your unwavering faith, despite our differences.

Regards.

It's all about satisfying inherent reproductive demands.

How one achieves such satisfaction is largely irrelevant.

Unless procreation is the actual purpose. Nonetheless there are ways around that one which do not involve heterosexual copulation.

The whole living together, marriage, fitted kitchen thing, in reality is completely irrelevant as long as the perpetuation of the species is not affected.

There is a distinct lexical difference between being perceived to be reasonable or not, and having reasons.

A. Has reasons to think that B. is unreasonable, giving B. reasons to suggest that A. is being unreasonable.

Similarly B. has reasons to assume that they are being reasonable and that A's. reasons are therefore unreasonable, whilst A assumes that their reasons are reasonable and that B's reasons are therefore unreasonable.

And so on.

The reason defines the reasoning irrespective of whether the reason is perceived to be either reasonable or unreasonable. 

Therefore the reason is always reasonable irrespective of whether or not the reason is considered to be either reasonable or unreasonable.

If you get my drift.

Some people might consider that the propensity to believe in various nonsenses, is perhaps genetic sickness.

It's an age thing isn't it?

I think that there are ways of doing things.

And different ways of doing things, which I have personally been conditioned to find preferable.

This might or might not make me seem conservative or liberal depending upon the point of view of the observer.

I very occasionally find my Nokia a useful tool. 

But the majority of the time it's where I left it.

I have a years old Nokia (purchase price £9.99)  that just does calls and texts, which cost's me £1 per week..

And I never ever us all my allowances.

I was in a restaurant with my wife yesterday and the younger couple at the next table spent most of their time when not eating, communicating with their respective devices rather than with each other.

Evolution maybe?

Homosexuality wasn't the trend back in the day.

All necessary facilitations now permitted.

2020.

Well my math is fine.

Though there was no complex math required with that problem.

It was simply about sequencing digits relative to certain criteria.

I like to do number puzzles, sudoku etc. maybe that helps.

Bigotry is one of those grey words.

Who has the right to decide the difference between a difference of opinion and intolerance?

After all, people tend to either agree or disagree. Otherwise a stasis of indecisive tolerance would perpetuate

Isn't it just the strength of the accompanying rhetoric that is used to define bigotry or not?

A few minutes.

Most of the time was taken up by checking that I hadn't infringed the rules.

Concentrating on rule 10 was the key.

473852

Everything is natural.

Stuff and things either are or are not.

Depending upon age of course.

Sex, food and survival are the natural preoccupations.

Yep.

I've decided to flip on religion too.

Tomorrow I will be mostly Sikh.

HaHa.

Nuff said.

@ BrotherDThomas

You can take it as the truth if you wish. That's your prerogative.

I certainly cannot accept mythology as being wholly truthful.

There certainly may have been a Jesus character.

But the flood and the big boat thing just doesn't realistically stack up.

Therein lies the mythology.

A fact and fiction human contrived pseudo-hypothesis.

And the Christian pseudo-hypothesis is but one of many.

You speak of things that you think you know.

Rather than things that you actually know.

I know why these things are done.

Though I have been conditioned to think that they are pointless.

Whereas you think that they have value.

Just variable data programming and utilisation.

Similarly you think you know what the Ultimate Reality is.

Whereas I think that neither of us actually has the ability to know what it is and therefore  we can only speculate.

Which is what all religion is....Speculation.

Be honest.

You haven't got a clue.

It's no good whatsoever attempting to explain the finer details when the basics already have you baffled.

?-1-0-1-0-1-0-1-0-1-0-1-0-?

LOL.

If your last reply is not a rant then I don't know what is.

Nonetheless:

Trump is the protagonist and Netanyahu the Zionist is his friend and they recently met inside of America.

And so the thread unravelled itself.

And I never mentioned Sandinistas, Bolsheviks or Maoists.

Whereas you, unwittingly or not have just introduced them to the thread.

See how these things unravel?

And all the above created during a period quiet reflection at the start of my day.

No ranting was or is ever needed.

Just as you are unwilling to entertain the idea that you might just be barking up the wrong tree.

If you think about it logically the whole flood thing and the big boat and the subsequent regeneration thing just doesn't stack up.

So is it really worth getting hung up about?

Who is "us"?

Us is you and I.

Unless you are an "alien".

Nonetheless, universally that is still you and I.

And as I continue to point out, the difference between you and I is simply how we separately acquired, stored and subsequently utilised data.

Data that is all very similar, but utilised in slightly different ways.

I understand your version of the God concept but regard it as non-sense.

Neither of us can prove the other to be wrong, because as you are well aware the God concept is only a concept. That is to say an internal data construct. A figment of our imaginations in other words.

Therefore God is unprovable and the ultimate reality is currently unknowable.

Nonetheless I still maintain that the God concept is reasonable, but certainly not in the way that you devote yourself to it.

No singing or uttering of prayers or incense burning or fancy outfits or pointy buildings required.

Yep.

5 Dimensions depending upon what you choose to regard as dimension.....That's a lexicographical issue.

Otherwise 2 possibilities.... Space and Time.... No creation necessary.

Space obviously incorporates all necessary dimension.

So we have the possibilities.

All that we need now is for something to take advantage of the possibilities.

And therein lies the real conundrum.

With no infinite we can attain 0.

And sequentially we can continually repeat 0 and reinitiate the sequence.

Nonetheless it all had to start a some point.

S.F.N....Same old problem.

Mopac has a steadfast belief in something that they often refer to as the ultimate reality.

And they tend to associate the ultimate reality with a Christianesque God type. 

Which makes them by definition a Theist.

Similar but separate concepts have arisen worldwide, their differences largely due to former geographical dissociation. We therefore nowadays have multi-theism relative to ongoing conditioning rather than monotheism or more logically non-theism relative to common sense. 

I think that most atheists would run with the notion of an ultimate reality, though most would be far less steadfast in their appreciation of the unknowable.

As you can see, ongoing multi theism/theism is clearly relative to ongoing conditioning rather than to an inherent reality.

That is to say if people are taught to be theistic then they tend to assume that they are theistic. (Though Mopac will probably suggest that they are an exception to this rule).

Whereas atheists, who no doubt have all the same basic information available, never underwent the same level of enforced conditioning and therefore are not as prone to making such rash and unqualified assumptions based upon an unknowable premise.

Homosexuality is but one of many methods of achieving the same result.

And the Bible and associated religions are a completely separate issue. 

In so much as, the former is an inherent necessity and the latter is a contrived doctrine.

Contrived doctrine as in mythological nonsense probably.

Probably; in as much as one can neither prove nor disprove the unprovable.

An appropriate expression would be; you can't see the wood for the trees.

And clearly you have a forest of goop that prevents you from appreciating the obvious.

I would suggest that before you can attempt to unravel the complexity of things, it is first important to recognise what needs to be unravelled..

Otherwise you might be wasting your time trying to unravelling something that isn't there to be unravelled.

Trump was already a part of the thread and Trump and Netanyahu evolved quite appropriately from the same.

Netanyahu is undeniably a Zionist and his recent collusion with Trump therefore inevitably renders Trump as the same.

The overt arrogance displayed during their recently televised Trump Netanyahu meeting was obvious, unless you watched with your eyes closed.

And simply because I state the obvious does not make me an anti-Semite.

And furthermore if you check through many of my other posts you will find that my views are very varied. I am often just as scathing of new liberalism as I am of overly arrogant conservatism. I have also occasionally extolled some of Trumps better qualities and have many times spoken out against anti-Semitism.

In short; I say what I think is relevant and have very few steadfastly pre-conditioned ideas.

Q. And so why is calling a Zionist a Zionist anti-Semitic? 

A. It's not of course, but nonetheless can easily be cynically manipulated to discredit an opponent and/or stir up trouble. Which is directly relative to the thread.

The recent Trump Netanyahu accord was overtly and undeniably Zionist. Correct terminology and far from Anti-Semitic.

In fact anti-Semitic  is a typical slur that would be used to both instigate violence and also to discredit an opponent.

The term evil Jews was never mentioned and certainly not in relation to the issue that was being discussed. Which was who instigates violence rather than who applies violence.

And so I continue to assume that you got my point and will therefore ignore your deception.

I think that the Dicip… plays you at your own game.

Time and Space are still nonetheless the possibilities that do not require diagrammatic or nominal representation.

And the S.F.N principle dictates that negation of the infinite. Ergo 0.

Otherwise you are always left floundering in the mire of overly complicated speculation.

You chose to overlook every valid point that I made previously. Which is your prerogative of course.

Though somewhat narrow minded and overly defensive for a debater perhaps. Especially when the typicality of you response is taken into account.

That is to say; the same old jargon which only has meaning relative to a particular set of conditioned data.

 Data with only a 2000 year old myth as evidence. 

As you did not respond to my question of instigation I will assume that you got my point.

Of course the media is biased. Which is directly relative to the previous point. Power corrupts etc...….

Intolerance is not just antisemitism. Like racism is not just black and white.

And I used the word Zionist appropriately and in accordance with it's proper definition.

So do you think that anyone has much of a chance of getting you.

And the simplicity that is the possibilities of time and space, is just about as logical, rational and as common sensical as it comes, if you cared to think about it.

I would suggest that you sometimes try to hard to overcomplicate things.

Eloquence is as eloquence does and words sufficed.

And the following parts were all appropriate derivatives of the first part.

Time and Space are simply the possibilities and therefore do not require human qualification.

The U.S. has been using military violence in an attempt to end supposed nonsense for decades now and got nowhere.

The only real diplomatic solution to the problem would be if the Israelis were to remove themselves form the region.

As I have suggested before an area of the Southern U.S. would do just fine for them.

Especially as you are all such great pals.

Are you oddly hirsute and do you have an exaggeratedly high forehead?

Are you suggesting that cumming into the gravy is a societal norm?

Nonetheless I did define quite eloquently how cum was quite obviously better than piss, given the probably purpose of the act.

How is questioning a 2000 year old tale contradictory?

Mythologies and creation hypotheses have been around for thousands of years and for thousands of years before your particular favourite one came along.

I simply choose to view all such tales with equal scepticism.

A mythological construct can be anything that the constructor/s of the myth wanted it to be. But also, in the context of the biblical mythology for instance, unless actually specified a character can possess or not possess any traits that subsequent interpreters of the myth may or may not wish to attribute to said character/s.

Therefore it is wholly possible to extrapolate from the biblical text the idea that the Jesus character, could easily have been either gay, bisexual,  celibate or in fact anything that is not actually specified.

A. I'm not asking who is throwing the stones. I'm asking who is instigating the violence. How better to discredit your opponent.

B. The manipulated media will broadcast what it wants to broadcast Big Bro.

C. And the obsequious arrogance of the Orange Man and the Zionist should tell you what the Right has to offer.

Legitimate enough is just making do with an illegitimate hypothesis.

Nowhere near the same thing as a legitimate basis.

Trump, Netanyahu and Hitler.

Obsequious, self righteous arrogance, that decides the fate of a nations without consultation.

Yep, all as bad as one another.

If you want concrete answers, study civil engineering.

No one can tell when you've cum in the gravy.

Whereas piss and shit are a dead give away.

The more subtle the perversion, the tastier the gravy and the more exquisite the memory.

A politicians answer.

But who instigates the violence when pro-abortionists march?

If pro-abortionists were left alone to march peacefully, isn't it extremely unlikely that they would want to attack themselves?

Therefore isn't it also fair to say that when pro-lifers march, that they are left alone and allowed to protest peacefully?

Which would logically imply that pro-lifers are the ones most likely to be responsible for the violence at pro-abortionist marches.

@ethang5

One must ask.

Irrespective of which crowd marches. Who instigates the violence?

And Trump drone strikes with impunity from the comfort of the White House, killing 10 people.

Why is Trumpian violence not violence?

Are you not simply selectively moral relative to your conditioned sensibilities?

Religious liberty is as religious liberty does, relative to the liberty of who is able to feel religiously liberated or not.

Similarly, common sense Judges are only common sensical when newly acquired data corresponds positively with their own particular store of what they have accepted to be common sense data.

And environmental concerns either are or are not common sense, depending upon what might or might not be assumed to be common sense.

Therefore, just because Donny speaks his mind relative to his conditioning and consequent data store and just because you have been similarly conditioned and therefore tend to agree with him, does not necessarily make either of you correct or righteous.

The English language is there to be used and if it is used in what is appreciably a reasonably logical format, then anything that is constructed as such is therefore applicable.

From where do you assume the authority to decide otherwise?

Good answer.

And Ronald Reagan was a truly admirable character.

But when viewed in comparison with Donnie was Ronnie really that much of a conservative?

I would disagree,

As you apply it, If is a functional concept and therefore an abstract idea. Both logical/rational or neither in terms of function.

Given that the functionality of data is as far as we are able to know, though the validity of the data is indeterminate as far as we are able to know.

If God existed, then theists or anyone might of proven it's existence.

No one has either proven or disproven Gods existence.

Therefore as far as we are able to know, God might or might not exist.

Modus Tollens is only applicable if used within it's prescribed parameters.