Religion II

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

Start with the details of your wager first. I bet you can not even state what your wager is about. Without playing word games.

Of course you could cite one specific test that depending on the outcome would "prove" your case.

In other words you could propose a real, or thought experiment which demonstrate a window shattering before the hammer strikes it.
What is your specific testy to be, then we can judge it's validity and relevance and if you can demonstrate a non-casual series of events we would all be convinced and impressed

What part of my 9867 didn't you get? I laid out the conditions to the wager. Quit stalling! Poop or get off the pot.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

Your argument against agnosticism was it was self-defeating because the agnostic must know something about god to even deny any knowledge of god.

An Apologetic word game by Norman G.(sorry forgot his name)

So let me guess, "how can anyone be absolutely certain of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.

Ta.........dum

Geisler is Norm's last name. And it's no word game. Total Agnosticism is self-refuting because in order to make a rational, meaningful statement about man's inability to know God or God's inability to make himself known, one must have some real knowledge about that which is unknown or unknowable. But if one does have some real knowledge, then total agnosticism contradicts itself.

On the other hand, if one admits to having no real knowledge of God, then the philosophy is meaningless. At best, it is pure conjecture. At worst, a laughable absurdity.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by boxcar

What part of my 9867 didn't you get? I laid out the conditions to the wager. Quit stalling! Poop or get off the pot.

Knwe you would chicken out. You cannot
prove anything with your silly word games.

You and Geisler think words abstracted incorrectly fropm reality is some sort of evidence for "proving" cause and effect. It is impossible without a real life demonstration.

So please do.

Geisler is Norm's last name. And it's no word game. Total Agnosticism is self-refuting because in order to make a rational, meaningful statement about man's inability to know God or God's inability to make himself known, one must have some real knowledge about that which is unknown or unknowable. But if one does have some real knowledge, then total agnosticism contradicts itself.

As I told you over and over again, I know you cannot fly, or Alf from the planet Melmac is not hiding under your bed. Or flapping his arms along with you.

Knowledge introduced about imaginary concepts may be eliminated without knowing much more than that concept is, as presented by Biblical literal fundamentalists totally contrary to what is known of the universe.

Unless you are willing to pose absurd contradictory laws of nature claiming effects need no cause preceding them on the human scale of events.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

Knwe you would chicken out. You cannot
prove anything with your silly word games.

Your dishonesty knows no bounds. Totally boundless! I'm waiting for you to accept the terms. I accept them. Why can't you? Everyone here is a witness that I'm ready to move forward and get this very short show on the road. YOU are not going to disappoint everyone, are you, by showing us how spineless you really are?

You and Geisler think words abstracted incorrectly fropm reality is some sort of evidence for "proving" cause and effect. It is impossible without a real life demonstration.

So please do.

As I told you over and over again, I know you cannot fly, or Alf from the planet Melmac is not hiding under your bed. Or flapping his arms along with you.

Knowledge introduced about imaginary concepts may be eliminated without knowing much more than that concept is, as presented by Biblical literal fundamentalists totally contrary to what is known of the universe.

Unless you are willing to pose absurd contradictory laws of nature claiming effects need no cause preceding them on the human scale of events.

Now, you're waxing incoherent. I can't make heads or tails out of your psycho-babble.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Want in on the action, do you?

Main Entry:2cause
Function:transitive verb
Inflected Form:caused ; caus£ing
Date:14th century

1 : to serve as a cause or occasion of : MAKE
2 : to effect by command, authority, or force
–caus£er noun

No, I could care less. But if you are going to have a discussion you have to have an agreement on the meaning of terms.

I have a question for you. In college, how many classes in physics, calculus, and higher math did you take? I'm just trying to understand how your background knowledge colors your perspective.

I haven't kept up with the thread enough to know whether retrocausality is real or not.

[Greyfox]

Originally Posted by HalvOnHorseracing

I have a question for you. In college, how many classes in physics, calculus, and higher math did you take? I'm just trying to understand how your background knowledge colors your perspective.

Why would anyone ask that sort of question of any poster on this board?
If one has degrees and courses on a resume, does that make a person's opinion more important than if one doesn't?

[TJDave]

Originally Posted by Greyfox

If one has degrees and courses on a resume, does that make a person's opinion more important than if one doesn't?

Seriously?

You ever hire anyone?

[Greyfox]

Originally Posted by TJDave

Seriously?

You ever hire anyone?

Is someone seeking employment here?
We're talking about OPINIONS here, not skills and credentials.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by TJDave

Seriously?

You ever hire anyone?

So, I'm Halv's prospective employee? Someone should have put the word out that I'm not for hire.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by HalvOnHorseracing

No, I could care less. But if you are going to have a discussion you have to have an agreement on the meaning of terms.

I hope my definition helped.

I have a question for you. In college, how many classes in physics, calculus, and higher math did you take? I'm just trying to understand how your background knowledge colors your perspective.

My "background knowledge" of scripture says that God has chosen the foolish things of this world to shame the wise.

I haven't kept up with the thread enough to know whether retrocausality is real or not.

You'd do better to catch up with Hcap and get him to agree to my wagering terms; for then you would learn something.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Originally Posted by Greyfox

Why would anyone ask that sort of question of any poster on this board?
If one has degrees and courses on a resume, does that make a person's opinion more important than if one doesn't?

I'll tell you why. Because it provides perspective. There are different ways to look at cause and effect. If we're looking at it scientifically. it may be different than looking at it philosophically. I didn't ask where he went or what his degree might be in. I just asked for background to elucidate where he might be coming from.

If he doesn't want to answer he doesn't have to. This isn't the Masons. It's not a secret sect.

[TJDave]

Originally Posted by Greyfox

Is someone seeking employment here?
We're talking about OPINIONS here, not skills and credentials.

You asked:

If one has degrees and courses on a resume, does that make a person's opinion more important than if one doesn't?

Absolutely. informed opinions are preferred.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by TJDave

You asked:

If one has degrees and courses on a resume, does that make a person's opinion more important than if one doesn't?

Absolutely. informed opinions are preferred.

Could we take a peek at your resume?

[Greyfox]

Originally Posted by HalvOnHorseracing

I'll tell you why. Because it provides perspective.

It also enables you to stereotype whoever you ask that sort of question to.

[TJDave]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Could we take a peek at your resume?

Sure. If you're prepared to do the same.