Skip to main content

quote:
Originally posted by Billy Joe Bob Gene:
b50, jank,

Y'all intrigued me to check out "Through the Wormhole".

Overall, quite interesting. I must admit I was put off by the guy in the first installment talking about all of obvious existence as a Simm computer model. It just goes to show you that a bit of Hollywood gets into everything.

Still watching. I've caught the first two episodes.

Thanks!


it's worth watching, true enough. i have seen most of them. might have missed one or two.
heck, they are worth watching, even if it's just for morgan freemans voice. one of the great voices in all of recorded history, on par with james earl jones and george takai.
quote:
Originally posted by midacts:
Plus, I don't think y'all have demolished the ontological argument yet by positing that the "prefect island, biscuit, or haremsSmiler" is a
parallel to God's existence as a necessary being. You don't think that a perfect island, duck, or biscuit is a necessary existence to you? But, from the definition of God, God's existence is necessary for all other existence to be. There is a difference between contingent being and necessary being.

Hey, this may be above my head.


It may be.

You've simply reached the point of the unknown, then defined god as that necessary thing for the known.

I was kidding about the Great Space Duck.

Everyone knows it was the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
quote:
Originally posted by thenagel:
my perfect wife will make her perfect biscuits, and i'll do up some insanely salty country ham, get out the strawberry jam and the butter.... a short stack of my special magical make you cry they're so good pancakes

mashed taters and gravy, pankcakes, biscuits and big honking juicy steaks, and slabs of ham and fresh butter and homemade strawberry jam and home made ice cream,


I'm hungry...can I come to your house? Big Grin
quote:
Originally posted by Billy Joe Bob Gene:
quote:
Originally posted by midacts:
Plus, I don't think y'all have demolished the ontological argument yet by positing that the "prefect island, biscuit, or haremsSmiler" is a
parallel to God's existence as a necessary being. You don't think that a perfect island, duck, or biscuit is a necessary existence to you? But, from the definition of God, God's existence is necessary for all other existence to be. There is a difference between contingent being and necessary being.

Hey, this may be above my head.


It may be.

You've simply reached the point of the unknown, then defined god as that necessary thing for the known.

I was kidding about the Great Space Duck.

Everyone knows it was the Flying Spaghetti Monster.


There you go again saying the name of our most holy god in the presence of christians.

What are we going to do with you Brother BJBG? Eeker
quote:
Originally posted by Billy Joe Bob Gene:
quote:
Originally posted by midacts:
Plus, I don't think y'all have demolished the ontological argument yet by positing that the "prefect island, biscuit, or haremsSmiler" is a
parallel to God's existence as a necessary being. You don't think that a perfect island, duck, or biscuit is a necessary existence to you? But, from the definition of God, God's existence is necessary for all other existence to be. There is a difference between contingent being and necessary being.

Hey, this may be above my head.


It may be.

You've simply reached the point of the unknown, then defined god as that necessary thing for the known.

I was kidding about the Great Space Duck.

Everyone knows it was the Flying Spaghetti Monster.


I take it you don't believe in causality, Billy Joe.
Sure I do, mid. Not necessarily for the BB, but for everything else. The laws of nature were undefined at the moment of the BB, including causality.

But, let's stipulate causality existed before the BB. God, you say? What caused god? You know I'm not going to let you get away by saying god is the timeless, immaterial, powerful, personal necessity of the Universe. It ain't necessarily so, and there's no reason to believe that it is.
quote:
Originally posted by midacts:
quote:
Originally posted by Billy Joe Bob Gene:
quote:
Originally posted by midacts:
Plus, I don't think y'all have demolished the ontological argument yet by positing that the "prefect island, biscuit, or haremsSmiler" is a
parallel to God's existence as a necessary being. You don't think that a perfect island, duck, or biscuit is a necessary existence to you? But, from the definition of God, God's existence is necessary for all other existence to be. There is a difference between contingent being and necessary being.

Hey, this may be above my head.


It may be.

You've simply reached the point of the unknown, then defined god as that necessary thing for the known.

I was kidding about the Great Space Duck.

Everyone knows it was the Flying Spaghetti Monster.


I take it you don't believe in causality, Billy Joe.


But you can't, Billy Joe, envisage a chain of causation going back infinetly, can you?
quote:
Originally posted by midacts:
quote:
Originally posted by midacts:
quote:
Originally posted by Billy Joe Bob Gene:
quote:
Originally posted by midacts:
Plus, I don't think y'all have demolished the ontological argument yet by positing that the "prefect island, biscuit, or haremsSmiler" is a
parallel to God's existence as a necessary being. You don't think that a perfect island, duck, or biscuit is a necessary existence to you? But, from the definition of God, God's existence is necessary for all other existence to be. There is a difference between contingent being and necessary being.

Hey, this may be above my head.


It may be.

You've simply reached the point of the unknown, then defined god as that necessary thing for the known.

I was kidding about the Great Space Duck.

Everyone knows it was the Flying Spaghetti Monster.


I take it you don't believe in causality, Billy Joe.


But you can't, Billy Joe, envisage a chain of causation going back infinetly, can you?


I think you are evaluating this argument from an epistemological position, however, I'm looking at it from a logic and ontological position, Billy Joe. You mentin "know" "unknnown" and stuff, but I only mention "it logically follows" or something like that. I'm not as concerned about what is known and unknown as I am about logically necessary, given the definition of the terms.
Mid,

You're going in circles about the ontological argument. It rests on the definition of god as that necessary to create the universe. I've already addressed that, and I've seen no argument in return other than naming of certain intellects who believed in that argument. A bit of a deflection, wouldn't you say?

I suspect the a priori knowledge to which you refer is the presumed existence of god. Is it?

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×