Geologist unleashes sick burn upon creationist numbskull
Good Reason News
Showing the harm of religious beliefs
It's Dr. Zoidberg! Homeowner!: "BUT BUT BUT CAPITALISM IS HUMAN NATURE" →
Bullshit.
It would be bullshit even assuming it wasn’t already bullshit.
Let me explain. Even if capitalism is the nature of humanity, it hurts people. Compare that to cold, the nature of winter. It also hurts people. So guess what we do. We build houses…
Also ~Human Nature doesn’t exist.
BOOM!
Rubio introduces amendment to toughen English requirement for immigrants →
Republican Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida announced Tuesday he will introduce an amendment to the immigration reform bill that would require all immigrants to prove they were proficient in English before they could receive permanent legal immigration status. Rubio’s amendment would significantly change the sweeping bill and would make it harder for millions of immigrants […]
Republican Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida announced Tuesday he will introduce an amendment to the immigration reform bill that would require all immigrants to prove they were proficient in English before they could receive permanent legal immigration status.
Rubio tries to create backdoor national language, discouraging the kind of diversity the Republican party thinks he represents.
“I don’t believe in evolution, I accept that it is true.”
“I don’t believe in evolution, I understand why evolution is true.”
New atheists don’t understand what a belief is.
Sounds more like you don’t understand the nuance of the word “belief.” Words have different meanings in different contexts, you know that, don’t you? There’s ‘belief’ meaning ‘intellectual acceptance’ and there’s belief meaning ‘devoted conviction or faith.’
Outside of the context of religion, I believe in the Republican party in that I accept that there is such an entity, but I do not believe in the Republican party in that I have no confidence in their ideas or actions. I believe that the best science points to evolution as the actual process by which species develop and change over time. I don’t just accept it’s true because a pile of unhistorical stories were compiled about it the way people who actually believe a magical god character exists do.
See, not everything’s so easily reducible to smartass little blog posts.
Hey GRN when you reblog posts for comment etc you can avoid the green box thing at the top by clicking the chain loop/diagonal infinity symbol in the top right of a post where you can select from a drop down menu "text", you probably already know this but figured it might be worth sharing :)
Hey thanks. I’m publishing so other people know too. Is the green box unappealing? I kind of liked it, but I didn’t know you could avoid it. Thanks again, photom.
Good Reason News: Why it's logically incoherent to think G-d needs a cause. →
Asking why does G-d not need a cause is like asking why a liar never tells the truth.
…because in either case the answer will be a lie?
Because of the definition of G-d as with the definition of a liar, it would be a logical contradiction to say G-d has a…
Again I did not define him into existence rather I just followed where the logic of the cosmological argument took me. The cosmolgocial argument is not that everything has a cause. But only contingent being have a cause.
But only contingent being have a cause. These words make no sense in this order.
After the dust is settles you have two options
Nope. You’re wrong about this.
either infinite amount of causes or 1 non contingent cause.
What about no cause? What about 2 causes?
The former is ad absrudum
Why?
thus the only other possibility is the 1 non contingent cause. The first cause. We call this first Cause G-d.
What? I don’t call it G-d, what makes you think that even if your shoddy reasoning is at all sound that you can claim to know anything about this god character?
I’ll rephrase. The first premise to the traditional cosmological argument is that All contingent beings have a cause.
Of course you need a cause for everything t hat is contingent like the universe.
The universe is neither a being nor a thing. Both space and time are parts of the universe and how those come about is unknown. It’s not known whether space and time can create itself or if it just appears spontaneously. Appearing spontaneously would be a better explanation than one in which a magical, supernatural creature made a wish.
Matter cannot create itself and is thus contingent.
You can’t reason out how matter is or isn’t created, you need to provide evidence. There’s just as much chance that a god created matter as there is that I created matter.
It’s absurd to have 2 non contingent causes.
Oh, well, if you say so.
If you have 2 contingent causes then you have to ask what are the cause for t hose causes. By definition they are contingent. Okay call it whatever you want. A first cause is the definition of a Deist G-d.
So, if two universes in some kind of multi-verse scenario collided and created a third universe, what in that scenario would you call a god? And why do you keep typing G-d? You know how superstitious that makes you look, right?
The cosmological argument proves a Deist G-d not a Theist G-d.
It doesn’t prove anything. It’s an apologetic, it’s mental gymnastics. There’s no evidence, just speculation.
Good Reason News: Why it's logically incoherent to think G-d needs a cause. →
Asking why does G-d not need a cause is like asking why a liar never tells the truth.
…because in either case the answer will be a lie?
Because of the definition of G-d as with the definition of a liar, it would be a logical contradiction to say G-d has a…
Again I did not define him into existence rather I just followed where the logic of the cosmological argument took me. The cosmolgocial argument is not that everything has a cause. But only contingent being have a cause.
But only contingent being have a cause. These words make no sense in this order.
After the dust is settles you have two options
Nope. You’re wrong about this.
either infinite amount of causes or 1 non contingent cause.
What about no cause? What about 2 causes?
The former is ad absrudum
Why?
thus the only other possibility is the 1 non contingent cause. The first cause. We call this first Cause G-d.
What? I don’t call it G-d, what makes you think that even if your shoddy reasoning is at all sound that you can claim to know anything about this god character?
Dear liberals
The inherent problem with Government providing a service is they can out-compete any competitor driving them out of business, thereby creating a defacto monopoly that is only run by Government.
For great examples, see how there are no television or radio stations besides PBS? Also, ever heard of a supermarket? Of course not, because all food is doled out by government assistance programs in this country thanks to this very principle. How could private industry possible compete with government run monoliths like the public library system, for instance? Would you purchase a book today? Of course not! They’re all free at the library! Yes, even public education has quashed any possibility of private sector growth in the field. Most Americans have probably never even heard the word “tuition,” let alone have to pay it!
The Unbelievers:
The cast for this looks awesome!
It really does. James Randi, what a great pick.
Why it’s logically incoherent to think G-d needs a cause.
Asking why does G-d not need a cause is like asking why a liar never tells the truth.
…because in either case the answer will be a lie?
Because of the definition of G-d as with the definition of a liar, it would be a logical contradiction to say G-d has a cause.
So, you’ve defined your concept of god into existence. That’s easy to do, but it doesn’t have any impact on the truth value of the claim. You can keep telling us about your concept of god and why it must exist and then provide excuse after excuse for why there’s no evidence, but we’re just going to keep asking your to point to evidence. This is an appropriate place to refer the allegory of the Leprechaun in a box (performed here by Jeff Dee and Matt Dillahunty.
So the criticism of the cosmological argument that it doesn’t explain the cause of G-d is not valid.
Actually, it’s plenty valid. You don’t know what logical validity is. You can’t just change the premise upon which your argument is built in order to force the conclusion to be sound because you end up begging the question. In other words, you can’t just say “well, whatever god I’m talking about has no cause,” without answering the obvious question, “how do you know that?” Now you’re stuck answering the question of A) how you know that your god exists B) How you know it has no cause and, the original question, C) why it needs no cause when, presumably, other things do.
