| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Nico Demusopelous" |
| Date: |
19 Apr 2004 05:41:13 PM |
| Object: |
A First Cause Argument for Don Kresch... |
Well, it seems Christopher has all but conceded defeat. He has nothing
left but his charge that his counterpart in the discussion is a liar
(an oft-repeated charge for Christopher, though almost always a
baseless one). Consider the following exchanges:
(1) Christopher A. Lee has claimed there are mathematical
arguments for the uncaused nature of certain events?
Nope, that's not a lie, you really did claim such!
It's a misrepresentation. But then you knew that anyway. Because you
have refused to address what I actually said.
It is not a misrepresentation. The above is one of the things you
said. Other than that, you made a bunch of other assertions without
backing them up. I guess you accepted the truth of those assertions on
faith, and was hoping that I would just take your word for it.
Yet another of your lies, liar.
This is not a lie at all. On Sunday, April 18th, 2004 at 17:26:10 GMT,
Christopher wrote the following:
"Similarly the virtual particles were predicted as part of the
understanding of quantum mechanics. The very math that predicted them
predicted their randomness. And they appear randomly as predicted."
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=0la580lp7r84vcjs0m17mtpkag2kdumcur%404ax.com
On Sunday, April 18th, 2004 at 18:37:53 GMT, I responded to
Christopher as follows:
"Ah, okay, so if the math predicted this (as you claim), then that
means there is some a priori argument for it being uncaused or random.
Of course I don't expect you to exhibit this math, but I would like to
see it. Could you point me in the direction of a journal or book that
demonstrates/exhibits some of the math?"
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=2c68d44e.0404181037.b7a8f12%40posting.google.com
So my claim that Christopher asserted that there is mathematical
justification is true. It is also true that he has yet to meet this
request to point us in the direction of a source where one can find
these mathematical arguments.
As for Christopher's other claims, he asserted that the decay of
certain radioactive materials is completely random (and thus uncaused,
non-deterministic), and he has also asserted that virtual particles
pop into existence uncaused. He has been asked repeatedly to give
justification for such conclusions. In other words, if you observe the
decay of the radioactive material mentioned by Christopher, on what
grounds do you conclude that such decay is truly random? As for
virtual particles, on what grounds does one conclude that they pop
into existence uncaused?
Christopher has been asked for the reasoning behind such conclusions,
but he has refused to provide it. That leads me to believe that he has
no idea what the reasoning behind such conclusions is, and thus he
essentially accepted the veracity of such conclusions on faith. Now,
I'm not saying that Christopher's claims are false. But the fact that
he is wholly unable to back up his claims is rather telling.
Christopher's atheism seems to be a sort of dogma - he's more like the
stereoype of a theist than a free thinker - maybe he's a godless
theist? Worse, he seems to be upset that I didn't take his claims as
true - I guess he was expecting me to just take his word for it.
And I notice you ran from the rest of the post (after it was shown
that you again were erecting a straw man argument). In case you want
to consider the rest of the post, it has been archived by Google here:
Yet another of your lies, liar.
This is certainly not a lie. People can see the post in question from
me here:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=2c68d44e.0404181323.1ed78f8a%40posting.google.com
There I show, towards the end, that Christopher raised a straw man
argument (attributing a methodology to me that I never employed).
After showing that he had erected a straw man, I went on to lay out my
seven point syllogism. So, what was Christopher's response? You can
find it here:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=snt5809i9tdt31e14e7b9dft332qr0os6j%404ax.com
You'll see that Christopher essentially snipped the entire post,
including the part at the end where I showed he was raising a straw
man, as well as the laying out of my actual argument. Funny enough,
Christopher will probably go on claiming that he refuted my argument,
when in reality he never confronted it. In fact, when it was presented
to him, he ran from it (as he usually does in these first cause
discussions).
All Christopher has left is the hollow/baseless charge that I am
lying.
.
|
|
| User: "Goldhammer" |
|
| Title: Re: A First Cause Argument for Don Kresch... |
19 Apr 2004 06:52:24 PM |
|
|
Nico Demusopelous wrote:
All Christopher has left is the hollow/baseless
charge that I am lying.
That is his M.O. He called me a
liar as well, when all I did was
ask him if cabbages are atheists
(he seems to think they are.)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: A First Cause Argument for Don Kresch... |
19 Apr 2004 10:38:24 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 23:52:24 GMT, "Goldhammer"
<goldhammer@my-deja.com> wrote:
Nico Demusopelous wrote:
All Christopher has left is the hollow/baseless
charge that I am lying.
So don't lie.
That is his M.O. He called me a
liar as well, when all I did was
ask him if cabbages are atheists
(he seems to think they are.)
Thank you for making my point for me.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Goldhammer" |
|
| Title: Re: A First Cause Argument for Don Kresch... |
20 Apr 2004 06:25:51 AM |
|
|
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 23:52:24 GMT, "Goldhammer"
That is his M.O. He called me a
liar as well, when all I did was
ask him if cabbages are atheists
(he seems to think they are.)
Thank you for making my point for me.
On 2004-04-02 16:07:56 PST,
Christopher Lee wrote,
"If you are stupid enough to bring up the
context of cabbages and theism they they
are TRIVIALLY atheist. That's the word you
idiots dishonestly leave out."
Are the follwing true or false, Mr. Lee?
1. A cabbage is "trivially atheist".
[ ] true
[ ] false
2. All "trivial atheists" are atheists.
[ ] true
[ ] false
3. Therefore, a cabbage is an atheist.
[ ] true
[ ] false
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Smith" |
|
| Title: Re: A First Cause Argument for Don Kresch... |
20 Apr 2004 04:15:23 PM |
|
|
"Goldhammer" <goldhammer@my-deja.com> wrote:
=Are the follwing true or false, Mr. Lee?
=
=1. A cabbage is "trivially atheist".
= [ ] true
= [ ] false
=
=2. All "trivial atheists" are atheists.
= [ ] true
= [ ] false
=
=3. Therefore, a cabbage is an atheist.
= [ ] true
= [ ] false
Only trivial cabbages are atheist.
__________________________________________
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
Mike Smith | aa #1164 | Founder of SMASH
__________________________________________
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
"He that is not with me is against me; and he that
gathereth not with me scattereth abroad." - Mt 12:30
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: A First Cause Argument for Don Kresch... |
20 Apr 2004 04:27:50 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 16:15:23 -0500, Mike Smith
<mikesmith@godisdead.com> wrote:
"Goldhammer" <goldhammer@my-deja.com> wrote:
=Are the follwing true or false, Mr. Lee?
=
=1. A cabbage is "trivially atheist".
= [ ] true
= [ ] false
=
=2. All "trivial atheists" are atheists.
= [ ] true
= [ ] false
=
=3. Therefore, a cabbage is an atheist.
= [ ] true
= [ ] false
Only trivial cabbages are atheist.
The troll was just being both deliberately stupid and dishonest.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Smith" |
|
| Title: Re: A First Cause Argument for Don Kresch... |
20 Apr 2004 07:14:55 PM |
|
|
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote:
= Mike Smith <mikesmith@godisdead.com> wrote:
=>"Goldhammer" <goldhammer@my-deja.com> wrote:
=>
=>=Are the follwing true or false, Mr. Lee?
=>=
=>=1. A cabbage is "trivially atheist".
=>= [ ] true
=>= [ ] false
=>=
=>=2. All "trivial atheists" are atheists.
=>= [ ] true
=>= [ ] false
=>=
=>=3. Therefore, a cabbage is an atheist.
=>= [ ] true
=>= [ ] false
=>
=>Only trivial cabbages are atheist.
=
=The troll was just being both deliberately stupid
=and dishonest.
I know.
__________________________________________
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
Mike Smith | aa #1164 | Founder of SMASH
__________________________________________
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
"He that believeth not the Son shall not see life;
but the wrath of God abideth on him." - John 3:36
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: A First Cause Argument for Don Kresch... |
20 Apr 2004 07:02:14 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 11:25:51 GMT, "Goldhammer"
<goldhammer@my-deja.com> wrote:
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 23:52:24 GMT, "Goldhammer"
That is his M.O. He called me a
liar as well, when all I did was
ask him if cabbages are atheists
(he seems to think they are.)
Thank you for making my point for me.
On 2004-04-02 16:07:56 PST,
Christopher Lee wrote,
"If you are stupid enough to bring up the
context of cabbages and theism they they
are TRIVIALLY atheist. That's the word you
idiots dishonestly leave out."
Again, than you for making my point for me.
If some moron brings up the context of cabbages and theism then,
BECAUSE IT IS THE CONTRAPOSITIVE, cabbages would be TRIVIALLY atheist.
But then I'm not the one stupid enough to bring up that context. You
were the moron that did that.
Please have the honesty to admit that instead of leaving it out to
make it appear as though I said that unprompted.
Are the follwing true or false, Mr. Lee?
1. A cabbage is "trivially atheist".
[ ] true
[ ] false
2. All "trivial atheists" are atheists.
[ ] true
[ ] false
3. Therefore, a cabbage is an atheist.
[ ] true
[ ] false
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
