Virgin Birth Confirmed

Status
Not open for further replies.
OilIsMastery said:
Very easily. It's tautological.
Click to expand...

Not literal?

No. You must not know what first means.
Click to expand...

You mean literally, or are you using a euphemism?

It's simple, I'm asking 'Where did God come from', and to be first cause, you will probably answer 'God has always existed' and then there is a logical trap, if God has 'always' existed, ie, existed for infinite time, he cannot have created the Universe yet, as infinity has not passed.

There has to be a beginning to time itself. That is the first cause.
 
Ah, repeating the same old debunked fallacies of Mill and Russell I see.

You don't understand Aristotle or the First Cause argument, and neither did Mill or Russell.

This objection is much less powerful than it first appears. In fact, it rests on a simple misunderstanding of the first cause argument.

If the first cause argument were the argument that everything has a cause, and that the universe therefore has a cause, and therefore that God exists, then the question Who created God? would indeed present the theist with a problem.

That, though, is not the argument. The first cause argument is the argument that everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause, that the universe has a beginning of its existence, and that the universe therefore has a cause of its existence. The theist can therefore confidently answer the question Who created God?, "No one created God", without fear of compromising the first cause argument.
Click to expand...

Link
 
No, I don't understand the argument, because it's flawed logic. Haven't you noticed the contradiction in that paragraph? 'Everything' excludes God, so the logic fails.

Seems you don't understand this.

Also, instead of quoting other people's flawed logic, please try explaining it yourself. Start with explaining to me if God existed for ever first please.
 
The first cause argument is the argument that everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause, that the universe has a beginning of its existence, and that the universe therefore has a cause of its existence. The theist can therefore confidently answer the question Who created God?, "No one created God", without fear of compromising the first cause argument.
Click to expand...

But the atheist can avoid the whole God thing by simply denying that the universe (or multiverse, perhaps) has a beginning to its existence and so "no one created the universe".
 
OilIsMastery said:
That would require effort.
Click to expand...

It would, than its sort of a catch 22, I need to work at "believing" and yet I don't believe enough as is to work at it. Maybe if someone were to kiddnap me, put me in a dark room, and have the necronomicon read to me backwards and non-stop for at least several days, I would BELEIVE.
 
James R said:
But the atheist can avoid the whole God thing by simply denying that the universe (or multiverse, perhaps) has a beginning to its existence and so "no one created the universe".
Click to expand...
I've often suggested that we measure time wrong and it has an absolute zero like temperature. The question "What happened before the Big Bang" could be as meaningless as "How does matter behave at temperatures below absolute zero?"

Nonetheless, the word "universe" means "everything that is." If the theists want to hypothesize a god, then that god by definition is part of the universe. They have to answer the question, "Where did the god come from?" For them to say, "God has no beginning," or "God always existed," is no more evasive than for us to say the same thing about the natural universe itself.

Perhaps God is a metaphor for the universe. Of course, religionists don't understand the concept of metaphor.
 
OilIsMastery said:
You don't understand because you don't want to.
Click to expand...

A logical answer would not require will to understand, it would just make sense. You want to believe, that's the problem, I want to be convinced, however.

The quote you provided was an apology to logic, not logic itself. Aristotle clearly understood the problem of regression, if God created the Universe, who created God? So he excuses God from the regression, by saying that only things that had a beginning needed creating.

That's bogus. It's flawed. Clever people have clever ways of apologising for dumb beliefs. Pretty prose doesn't equate to logic.
 
James R said:
But the atheist can avoid the whole God thing by simply denying that the universe (or multiverse, perhaps) has a beginning to its existence and so "no one created the universe".
Click to expand...
You've touched on the prime reason that there currently isn't an answer to the "God or no God" argument. Mankind places beginnings and endings to everything as an absolute. To man, all things must have an exact place in space that is an end and an exact moment in which time started in all events. This is the problem between the two factions present in this seemingly endless debate.

The sky-pixie bunch use their omi-whatever being to fill any absolutes that are missing in the equation. The absolute swinging anti-sky pixie bunch use the same amount of logic in sternly commanding that there can not be any such thing as a super being.

I do love to watch you guys argue. The reality of the pointlessness in the argument is that which neither of you apparently see, (unless you argue for nothing but practice).

The obvious avoidance of those arguments of logic that show the absolutes in either side are, in themselves, an avoidance of the truth of the matter. That truth being that at this point in man-time, there is no answer to the absolute, regardless of the amount of argument.

A man blind since birth cannot say that "light blue" exists as seen by his seeing companions. Neither can he ever say with accuracy that "light blue" doesn't exist to them. Because of his lack of ability to ever have seen or to see "light blue", he'll remain ignorant of the outcome of the existence of "light blue" until he either has the ability to "see", as do his companions or gains insight to it's existence in some other manner that proves it's absoluteness.

Prior to arguing my above statements, examine them with your argument and see if your argument has already been discovered within my statement. It'll avoid my having to say that you should have read more closely.

But, by all means, keep practicing this argument. It amuses me.

James, so far, it seems that you're the only one in this instance to bring up a fraction of my point. I commend you for your fairness in logic.
 
What's the difference between OilIsMastery and a diamond in the rough?

Not much, one is a unique gem cast asunder and the other is a fuckwit.

Jokes OIM..Just jokes..you know what they are don't you??
 
OilIsMastery said:
Not to a fundamentalist.


You don't want to be convinced. You're a fundamentalist. You've made no attempt to understand logic, Aristotle, motion, or causality.
Click to expand...

Oh dear, you are just stuffing a straw man. I'm not a fundamentalist, I'm a sceptic, but you refusing to provide proof is just you hiding behind your own straw man.

Aristotle was guilty of apologising for God. It was not logic, it was apology.

Now, quit being shifty and evasive, and post something of merit.
 
OilIsMastery said:
You've made no attempt to understand logic, Aristotle.
Click to expand...
You swing a huge club of "Aristotle". The club is 2000+ years out of date and no longer is useful in much. Argue using something from this century, or can you?

Every time someone places you at a point in which you have to admit loss, you claim "You're just a <fill in with your favorite word>!

You think somehow that this will release you from argument. It doesn't. It just shows that you've given up in frustration because you're losing.

But, do keep on. You're amusing me.
 
Well, the virgin birth.... it is a prize long sought after, it has in current times lost its place of intrest in society but is being rediscovered by scientist.
The ability of self reproduction has always been present in humans,but the proccess of how to self reproduce is not known to the mass population.
Self reproduction rest as a function of human males, as the ablitiy to self reproduce does not exist in the human female. human females require pollenation, or seeding by a male.
Human males are both male and female,human males must first learn how to use and exercise this function of self reproduction but currently their is no social order of society that teaches young males this practice.
In order for a human male to make such a biological change he must disrupt his rate celluar division, this is a difficult thing to do properly and so is risky. no male wants to be caught appearing half male and half female.
The nessacary disruption of cell division actually occurs in different perctages of males, although not to the exstent of which self reproduction would be a possiblity, or for that matter noticable difference. Many we find small patches of organs or tissues that have undergone a disruption in cell division. For example the Chromosome balance for male cell division may exist throughout the entire body with the exception of several organs such as the kidney or other organ such as the skin, in these organs of the male body the chromosome balance is female.
The same condition exist for hermorphidites by the distribution of cell balance is more pronounced towards female and so you see the marked development of female traits. within the group of hermorphidites you find variuos chromosome groupings some with extra sex determining chromosomes. Abnromal chromosome groups with extra chromosomes does not have to be the cause with a human male any normal set of chromosomes could do the same type of cell division resulting in the male transforming into female.
The process in males goes mostly unnoticed, and with out effect on the life of the male because cell division rates are slower in adults in comparision to adolescents. most males that exsperience a disruption of cell division in adolescents with have some minor female feature. If groomed properly the adolescent can make the transformation into a female.
Why can not males do this at their own will, the awnser is biological activity, if a adult male has enough biological active and can control the cell division he can make the change at his own will.

The real prize comes with the ablity to change in to female and change back to male, which gives the male a exrecise of freedom from being stuck as one gender. if a male had only enough life energy to transformation to female to reproduce he might want to remain a male in physcial form.

DwayneD.L.Rabon
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top