Guess what Mister delusional? I am a Veteran, and I never laid claim to blame in any post. I stated that the events required explanations since what we were told is not correct based on observational facts (which are simple to verify). You are the person that has repeatedly injected motives and blame. Re-read every post I made, and not one time will you find that I assigned blame to anyone.
Let me be perfectly candid: If the truth is that a pilot was ordered to shoot the plane down, I'm okay with that. We were not told they were shot down, we were told that they impacted and were destroyed. Either way, the reason "why" is secondary to noticing something called "facts" which clearly show that the given explanations do not work.
Ever wonder why are over 20,000 Engineers and Architects asking about the 9/11 events? In reality the motive does not make as much difference as making sure there is no impact to current and future architecture and Engineering. You probably will not even consider it rational to look. Hell in your own words 'those people are just crazy and dishonoring dead people' right? Because that's what you have been brainwashed in to believing. You can go read their thoughts at ae911truth.org, but probably won't because Fox News said it's bad.
Ever wonder why many Veterans are asking questions regarding all 9/11 events? If you have a rational thought in your head, the correlation with the logic for ae911truth would be obvious. I doubt you will get the logic any more than you would look in to a fact yourself. It's much easier to listen to TV and call anyone looking for answers names. Get help man, you are in pretty bad shape.
No more discussion, you are a horribly delusional person. Contrary to one of your previous statements, there is no straw man argument in that statement. If you were rational you would simply re-read this discussion and recognize it for yourself. Of course you believe your delusion to the point of ignoring facts, and using blatant and repeated fallacy to argue your opinion over facts. Even when something is pointed out as fallacy, you re-use the same argument over and over. Perhaps you should read up on what a fallacy is.
I still don't discount that you are a person paid for propaganda. If that's the case, you are poor at the job and should find a new line of work.
What? Are you insane? Really you should put numbers like that to a better litmus test. I'd really like to see the questions posed to get the theism vs. atheism to know who is counted as well as the criteria. Notice that "Western Philosophy" is not a search criteria, yet every western Philosopher up until the late 1600s would be "Theist", which includes Ancient Greek Philosophy. Aristotle was sure there was a creator, but is he counted as Theist? Well, if I look at "Ancient Greek" nothing shows up except for Priori knowledge.
If the data is obviously skewed, then the data is worthless. Sorry, come up with some better numbers.
Interestingly, if you look at only the "Asian Philosophy" you will see atheism more where I would agree to western Philosophy in terms of numbers. Roughly 25% of Asian Philosophers lean toward atheism, and huge number of those counted in that 25% are relatively recent.
The moral of the story is this: dissidents should airgap any system they use for sensitive/secret material.
What about the Free journalists in countries like the USA where they should not be considered "dissidents"? Perhaps this was just an oversight on your part. In the USA, many Journalists are called dissidents by US Government Agencies (CIA/DHS/TSA) but that is not correct constitutionally.
I genuinely do not understand how people don't get this. You want to push against the big boys? Assume they have tools you've never even imagined. It's just like sterilization in medicine. You don't know what the patient has, so you treat everything they touch like it's covered in plague. Diligence, children, diligence is the key to anonymity.
Is it wrong that this exists? Probably. Are you naive for believing that these types of tools aren't used every day? Absolutely.
As with my comment above, there is a danger in suggesting that _all_ journalists are dissidents, and that _any_ or _all_ Governments should be actively fighting against free journalism. In the last 50 years in the US, we have lost the wisdom of JFK. The full text can be found here in both edited and unedited form. Before you claim "but but conspiracy blah blah" go read the full fucking speech you lazy pricks! (not to be interpreted as the poster I'm responding to)
This deadly challenge imposes upon our society two requirements of direct concern both to the press and to the President–two requirements that may seem almost contradictory in tone, but which must be reconciled and fulfilled if we are to meet this national peril.I refer, first, to the need for a far greater public information; and, second, to the need for far greater official secrecy.
The very word “secrecy” is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings. We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it. Even today, there is little value in opposing the threat of a closed society by imitating its arbitrary restrictions. Even today, there is little value in insuring the survival of our nation if our traditions do not survive with it. And there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon by those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment. That I do not intend to permit to the extent that it is in my control. And no official of my Administration, whether his rank is high or low, civilian or military, should interpret my words here tonight as an excuse to censor the news, to stifle dissent, to cover up our mistakes or to withhold from the press and the public the facts they deserve to know.
But I do ask every publisher, every editor, and every newsman in the nation to reexamine his own standards, and to recognize the nature of our country’s peril. In time of war, the government and the press have customarily joined in an effort based largely on self-discipline, to prevent unauthorized disclosures to the enemy. In time of “clear and present danger,” the courts have held that even the privileged rights of the First Amendment must yield to the public’s need for national security.
I have added some emphasis on key items for consideration. We are beyond simply censoring news, we now have the NY Post sending stories pre-editor to CIA for preview. We now have media claiming racism on any criticism of Politics (hell, even Rush Limbaugh went off on that one today).
I implore you to read the full speech and keep things in context. Evaluate where we have gone in the last 50 years, inductive reason should tell you that it has not been forward. To claim "no sense in fighting technology" is an ignorant stance suggesting we should all just say fuckit and stop being free.
A jet motor is not the same as a normal fire, or people's houses would not be able to have a fireplace. I also did not say "explosion", I stated "controlled explosion". The difference to anyone with even a primitive knowledge of Physics would understand the difference.
What I am publishing is rational thinking, which was based on a response to a post which stated very similar to you "Anyone looking at facts is mentally ill". What you both are doing is called either 1) propaganda (in an attempt to manipulate people) or 2) Expressing a personal delusion.
There was absolutely no BS in any of my posts, contrary to your repeated instance at such. You simply deny facts, and claim that someone looking at facts is wrong to look. Why? You refute every fact I gave, from your first reply to me. If you had no interest in items 1. or 2. above, you would have A) kept quiet or B) checked facts. Instead, you went with the option not even listed, which was to display a child like tantrum, name call, and deny reality. You continue to modify facts to suit your delusional belief that nobody should look for facts, as you clearly demonstrate by modifying my statement regarding the metallurgy of Engines to be the metallurgy of the shell of an air craft. Stop and look at your irrational thinking! It's blatantly obvious, and extremely severe (To the point where I suggest perhaps it's time to visit a Psychologist and begin medication).
You continue with the fallacy of "it offends dead people to investigate" after I pointed out that it's a fallacy. As with my previous mention, I believe that this is strictly to protect your delusion. This would be fine by itself if you just denied everything and kept quiet, but you continue to deny all facts and attack someone pointing out facts.
Let me share an anecdote from a book called "Plato and a Platypus Walk in to a bar" by Thomas Cathcart and Daniel Klein. I'd strongly suggest that you read the book for a brief introduction to Philosophy. Page 33 (Logic).
Two men are making breakfast. As one is buttering the toast, he says "Did you ever notice that if you drop a piece of toast, it always lands butter side down?"
The second guy says "No, I bet it just seems that way because it's so unpleasant to clean up the mess when it lands butter side down. I bet it lands butter side up just as often."
The first guy says "Oh, yeah? Watch this." He drops the toast to the floor, where it lands butter side up.
The second guy says "See, I told you".
The first guy says, "Oh, I see what happened. I buttered the wrong side!"
That anecdote shows exactly what you are doing. You will most likely refuse to believe that just like you have repeatedly modified statements so suite your needs and refuted plain, clear, and easy to verify facts.
Seriously consider seeking professional help. I have pointed out repeatedly that you are not thinking rationally or critically. Your repeated answer has been to attack ad hominem, deny facts exist, and claim that everyone should share your belief system over verifiable facts. This level of delusion is rather worrisome, and the ad hominem attacks demonstrate that you could easily resort to violence in order to protect your delusion.
Considering your rather abusive tone, I think I have done very well in maintaining my composure in responses. My portion of this conversation is now concluded however, since there is no possible way to have an intelligent discussion with a person with the level of delusion you are displaying. Have a nice life, and I do hope you try and get better.
On further reflection, I'll ask if you could please keep the quotes in perspective. You made a rather absurd claim regarding "Philosophy", I gave a rhetorical response to make a point. If you go back and read, I think you will see my logic and rhetoric rather plainly.
My retort had nothing to do with you wishing to use a different definition for "atheism" than I showed is in current dictionaries. If you are using a definition from circa 1321, I'm okay with that. Just make the distinction so that I can understand your point of view.
I'm confused on how you are making a distinction. Answer this question: Would my definition of a "Creator" be a "deity" as I claim it is?
If you say no, I need to understand why you would say no.
If you say "yes", then I will ask how "Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities" does not fit my use of the definition?
I claim that the Universe must have a creator, and the creator must be a deity.
An atheist rejects that belief by definition correct? The definition does not state "atheists deny a belief in Theology".
Oh, it's so easy for you to call BS but did you bother to even look at how easy facts are to find? Here you go, now go pound sand up your lazy propagandist asshole. If you are still confused, from that data you can readily find photos (where they exist)as well as details surrounding the crashes. Such as air speeds, altitudes, etc.. Such as TWA Flight 260 which has images here.
I never claimed "911 is an inside job" as you once again inject as an appeal to emotion. Never, not one time. I stated that there are facts missing and incorrect from all 4 events on 9/11 that people are asking to have resolved. Go back and read what I wrote, and stop injecting _your_ fantasies in to what I wrote. You can go back and read them as often as you like, never did I claim what you state.
Next you will probably claim I was somehow able to edit my posts right? Your delusion has been thus far rather obvious.
Your whole last paragraph is a series of appeals to emotion. You learned them from TV didn't you? My guess is, that you still have not checked 1 thing for yourself. Nope, not 1. Even knowing TV tells lies you insist it can't lie. You don't see the appeal to emotion that "This "911 is an inside job" bullshit is an insult to a lot of dead people." is? If you don't, then you are absolutely blind. Come on now, it's not even a good fallacy. This is Google search easy to determine as fallacy.
Yeah, I'm sure you were pulling me up on evidence. Now you have 2 samples. Were you really just being lazy? Will you go look now? I'm guessing you won't, you will have more reasons why anyone asking for _facts_ should not do so. "Those fact seekers are just crazy conspiracy nut jobs, the TV said so!"
Oh, and from that sample gallery I provided you can see how much of a plane survives a crash. Wholly shit, that plane crashed in to a mountain which is at least as hard as a building. It was last seen in a high speed climb, which for that model of Air plane is roughly 300 Mph. Even prop engines are pretty damn solid, and that is proven by of all things.. science. And before you claim something stupid the answer is "NO! Another 100-150 Mhp will not magically make titanium alloy vanish. Various parts may separate, but the core parts are built to withstand explosions. You do know how jet engines work right? You do realize that the conversion of fuel to energy is a controlled explosion right? Hell, you will probably deny that too.. Or you will claim it was a tree that kept everything from the motors in tact, ignoring the fact that about 50 feet of 757 would have absorbed impact prior to the engines of a 757 hitting a wall. You will only claim knowledge of physics if it suits your fantasy world right?
I get the distinction you were getting at now, thank you for the clarification. I still don't agree, but that's why we differ in opinion:).
You seem to be claiming that a deity would have to have a defined power to be a deity? Or perhaps alternatively, that a Creator has no special powers? I'll contend that for the creator to make space, matter, energy, and make it all abide by a set of rules we know as Physics, it would require an incredible amount of power and knowledge. It would be very much "super human" power since it's way beyond our capacity physically, and mentally. This matches the definition of "deity" very well, in fact any definition you could convince yourself is valid.
Meritorious points made, well done! That said, I can't agree that I'm contradicting myself.
"First of all, you assume there "was" "nothing" and this "nothingness" is incomprehensible and inexpressible in any language."
To the first point regarding the assumption, I agree that is what I have. I don't hide that fact at all, I will tell you that my belief is my opinion at any given time.
To your second point, I disagree that it's incomprehensible. In my opinion, it's similar to claiming we can't comprehend "Zero". I will claim that we can, and we use that definition in all forms of mathematics. I'm not sure most people would be able to express that Zero is a concept as well as a number, which to me means that it's rather simple to use. I would agree that imagining a Universe devoid of everything is rather hard to comprehend, but is it incomprehensible? I don't believe so.
If I am correct that "nothing" is comprehensible, then I can soundly claim that I have logical assumption for the remainder. Those assumptions seems to be backed by Science. We can run simulations of the Universe's motion in reverse and see that there appears to be a point when there was in fact "nothing".
Perhaps you are referring to the elastic Universe theories. Where the Universe expands and contracts repeatedly, and we are in Nth instance of the expansion? If so, how does that change the basic premise of the initial question? Passed the obvious time difference for the age of the Universe, would we suddenly need no initial starting point? My answer to that question is that we would still need a starting point.
If you are simply asking "who created the creator" I'll answer that that this is a paradox, which like the other paradox you mentioned is really a nonsense question. The resolution for that exact paradox is also handled at the same time as the other paradoxes mentioned earlier. You can ponder forever but you will never solve it, and the solution has no bearing on the initial question.
Why do you pull such statements from thin air after sounding logical in your last post? It is utter nonsense to request 'define "definition"', this is a basic grammar rule required for rhetoric. And yes, Bill Clinton was wrong to ask for a definition of "is" for the same reason. You are typing the language, and if you fail to understand the rules, well that is not my problem. Both words are already defined, and I sample the most critical word from Websters.
deity
noun \d--t, d-\
plural deities
Definition of DEITY
1
a : the rank or essential nature of a god : divinity b capitalized : god 1, supreme being
2
: a god or goddess
3
: one exalted or revered as supremely good or powerful
See deity defined for English-language learners
See deity defined for kids
Examples of DEITY
If you disagree that a Creator would be a deity, you know the thing that instantly created matter and space and energy and physics, and wish to claim that any old Joe could do the same thing, I'm okay with that. That is not your claim however. You claim that definitions do not exist and that you have no way of knowing what the term "define" means.
You should really check a dictionary before you make statements like you did. From Merriam Webster (Item 2 since Item 1 is the archaic)
a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity ". If you don't like Webster, go look at Oxford, or hell check Wiki if you dislike large Dictionary companies and prefer Open Source solutions.
The more traditional philosophies stress never knowing anything, and sitting around talking about proving things you can't know.
I smell bullshit! This is not even a good fabrication. You obviously have no clue what Philosophy is outside of what someone told you, do you? Well, it's never to late to educate yourself!
To your first point, I ask "Huh?" If you have no Universe how do you have rules? That is an extremely illogical perspective. I was trying to work on an analogy for that, but I can't think up anything suitable. We know that the Universe went from nothing to something in an instant, look at the science! Nothing means no space, no mass, no energy, and of course no rules of physics.
To your Aquinas comment, I agree he did not do a very good job on that one. Not even a good study to be honest, unless you want to learn "How not to Philosophy". With that said, the terms of a creator best come from really Aristotle in my opinion. If you use his argument, you can't really go wrong. Honestly most of my works of late have shown how "Science" does not change his argument. Aristotle was absolutely brilliant in his thoughts.
Now, before you go all Kraus on that, it's tired and weak also, remember that the latest particle Physics work requires a vacuum to exist and the quantum physics to already exist. If you are as bright as you seem to be, you will see that Aristotle's theory still holds true.
To the paradox you point to, the answer is in PHY 200, or should be. The same answer is true for "If God is all powerful can he make a stone so heavy he can't lift it?" and "How many Angels fit on the head of a pin?". The questions are completely invalid, so should be ignored just like you would ignore someone asking "Why is red so blue?". Those are nonsense questions. You could spend a life time trying to question their validity, but why would you?
To your last point, please check the Wiki page, Oxford dictionary, Websters Dictionary, and any other reasonable reference for the definition of Atheist. "Anti Theist" is universally defined, and a belief that no deities exist. I have already pointed out in other responses to this thread how a Creator of the Universe _must_ be a deity by definition. You may disagree, but I will simply point you to the same sources for definitions on "deity" as I will for "atheist". Is is possible that are simply agnostic claiming to be an atheist? Please don't inject a specific Theology in to that question or answer. In fact you don't even have to answer it. Perhaps you don't view the definition as literally as I do.
...here is what is important. If you take the time to try and answer the question for yourself, you may be surprised at how low the probability there is for the Universe not needing a creator
Ah. This old argument again.
If you assume that a creator with the power to create the universe already exists it makes it easier to explain how the universe could exist. (duh)
Have you ever tried to figure out what the chances are of such a creator existing are?
Actually you are thinking from a different perspective. Have you studied Aristotle's uncaused cause at all? To believe that nothing caused the Universe to exist is a rather strange phenomenon. In the Universe, everything we see relates to cause and effect. It's very logical to believe that "something" created the Universe given that we see cause and effect in absolutely everything. So yes, I have actually spent nearly 20 years working on the answer to the question, and the odds that "something" caused the Universe to exist are extremely good. In fact in real odds, the chances are 1 in Infinity that there was no cause for the Universe to happen. If something caused the Universe to exist, would that not be a "Creator"? Please keep the Theology out of the possible answers, since it does not matter at this point.
If not, the only thing you are doing here is moving the focus from the problem of the improbability of the existence of the universe to the improbability of
the existence of some eternal omnipotent god.
This is not in any way an improvement since the likelihood of such a being existing is a lot more improbable than the universe being created by random chance.
Wait, you are putting to much emphasis on "being" Is there a creator is not the same is "is there a being" is it? I guess in ignorance you could claim that, but a "Creator" would be both more and less than a "being". The real question should be "Was there something that caused the Universe to exist?" If the answer is "yes" then the event that caused us to be would be a "Creator" right? "Being" implies a body, shape, specific powers. "Creator" would have "created" space, matter, energy, and all of the rules of Physics simultaneously. No body, or shape is required. What is required, is an incredible action beyond our comprehension. Creating everything from matter to energy, and all of the rules for how things operate in an instant is pretty dang cool.
That is unless, of course, you have figured out something no one else ever has: how this being came about and how it acquired the power to create the universe.
That statement is a Paradox you learn to resolve in Philosophy 200, not even the 2X0 or 3XX level classes. Take the class, it's educational!
If so, I, and a large part of the rest of humanity, would really like to know. You could even make a few bucks by writing a book about it.
Actually I have been working on a book for a long time, but I am not paid to be a writer so years from done.
Thanks for the perspective, and apologies for making an assumption. When I referred to the state of the world, I should have been more clear. There are 2 Philosophies in contention, which have quite honestly been in contention for a very long time (thousands of years at least). If you understand "The allegory of the Cave" then this should be rather obvious. It is my belief that we are nearing a historical collision between those Philosophies. This is not the first collision, they have collided through history very often. Sometimes small (See the initial Sophist movement) and sometimes rather large (see Stalin, WW II, hundreds of events during the cold war, etc.. etc..)
Personally, I see the Obama health care issue as a side show (for lack of better terms, not literally since it has implications on the whole scenario). The current push from the US is a bit more sinister. The "establishment" wishes to rid the world of those outside of the cave, and re-shackle those in the cave to ensure they don't move for a very long time. That is a Sophist agenda dating back thousands of years, and something that Socrates and Plato fought very hard against.
To get that perspective I have to zoom as far out as possible from the picture, ignore the small fights, and look for the real war. It's not easy to do mind you, and as a personal note I struggle with that constantly.
One thing through history that is very consistent is the stage being set for the larger battles. De-humanizing people is always a precursor, which is exactly what the statement "you have no free will" does. Over time, people begin to question their own free will and their own humanity. History teaches us this as well, and to see the success you only need to look at the Communist revolutions.
I could be wrong about the whole concept, and I admit that possibility. I challenge that belief rather constantly. It's much easier to watch the puppet shows we are given.
As mentioned previously, I have no idea whether the person was simply repeating propaganda or not. I view this type of propaganda as extremely detrimental to humanity. I recognize the harm it does long term to society. I try to challenge that type of propaganda when I see it, which is a lesson learned from reading, studying, and understanding Socrates.
The burden of proof is in the published work. Start reading, there is probably a lot to catch up on! Descartes, Plato, Aristotle, Aquinas, Socrates, Einstein (make sure you don't simply review the atheist propaganda quote, read his complete journal), and yes Einstein was a Philosopher as well as a Physicist, and the list could go on for a very long time. Those are starting points however, and you can read their contemporaries and counter parts, then continue.
To your second point, that is absolutely a false dichotomy. Atheists by definition believe in no deities. If the Universe has a Creator, the Creator must be by definition a deity. The rules of physics did not exist prior to the Universe being created, so the Creator must have had powers beyond our comprehension in order to create the matter and energy, and the laws of Physics which are bound inside of our Universe. Perhaps you are using words contrary to their definition in order to suite your belief system?
You, not I, tarnish the reputation of Engineers and Architects. You change the subject often, invent statements, and choose to ignore facts. As stated previously, you are doing so to either spread propaganda or protect your beliefs. Since your posts remind me of a child having a tantrum, I'm guessing it's the latter.
I am not a MSCE contrary to you insisting such nonsense. I won't even begin to mention what my credentials are because you insist that facts do not exist, that people should not investigate facts, and that decade old TV is the only truth you want or that anyone should use. You have repeatedly stated that anyone looking at facts is just a conspiracy person, and everyone should trust their memory from TV over a decade ago to find facts. It takes a very sad person, to dismiss facts as you have. You don't deserve to know my credentials since you show that you completely lack credibility and logical thought.
As mentioned earlier, it would not take a conspiracy that most people consider. How about a more valid way of explaining the problem, such as I earlier mentioned? There are some things that should be explained in all 4 of the major events of 9/11. Why on Earth would people start looking? This is a normal critical thinking step called correlation. If there are issues with answers given regarding WTC perhaps there are issues with more of the events. I notice that you dropped the WTC questions and just went with something that hurts your beliefs even more. A true champion for the propaganda!
I have no idea whether you are spreading propaganda to convince others not to look, or simply as a protection of your weak belief system. Investigating facts would challenge your beliefs, and that's rather traumatic to the mind. Go talk to a friend in the psychological field, they will tell you that same exact thing.. which is another proven fact (which you will probably ignore).
During my time in the Military I had to visit several crash sites. These were of course not civilian crashes, but military air craft. I have seen dead bodies in the wrecks, and in the case of a fighter crash just bits of bodies. I have also seen how jet engine parts stay remarkably solid even after a mid air collision between two F16's flying at over Mach 1.2. I have some real life experience to back a perspective, however I rely more on facts regarding other crashes with civilian jets since there is a massive difference between how Military and Civilian air craft are constructed. I won't rely on a propeller plane from the 1940's to determine how jet engines react in a crash however, doing so is foolish. What is interesting though, and perhaps will help you connect dots is your statement "over a lot of landscape in little pieces". Go look at images of both the Pentagon and Penn crash and look for pieces.. you won't find enough pieces to make up a Lear jet, let alone a 747. No body parts, no clothing, no luggage broken open.
Science requires facts, not opinion and belief. I never stated that the whole jet would remain in tact so stop inventing bullshit to back your weak beliefs or to spread propaganda. Many engine components would remain in tact, or at least mostly in tact. But of course that logic is beyond your belief system, so you will invent more bullshit to counter instead of ever going to look for a single fact. You ignore the fact that the single rotor photographed was absolutely in tact, even if it was 1/3rd the diameter of a 757 engine rotor.
In fact the only thing you have to tell you it's a civilian jet crash is someones word. Do I blindly trust the word of companies that have been caught fabricating and editing "news", and were sued up to the US Supreme court which ruled "News is Entertainment so they don't have to tell the truth, and can modify and fabricate information at will"? The answer to that is simply "Nope, not a chance in hell". I'm betting that you will deny any court cases ever existed just like you ignore other plain and open facts. That one really hurts
Ooooh, a person claiming to work with Engineers can call names. I'm so intimidated and belittled by you. And you can read and comprehend so well.. wow, maybe I should go pee myself or something now? Oh, sorry I won't do that
First understand that plane crashes involve speeds vastly faster than car crashes, and that planes are more fragile
Hello Captain Obvious! I stated "Compare these crashes to ever other commercial air line crash in history" which would include of all things.. other air planes traveling at different speeds. I never mentioned a car, or a boat, or a jet fighter, or a moon lander, or anything else you wish to invent. So you are not just a propagandist, you are partially illiterate?
, and then take another look at your conspiracy theory.
YOU are the only one that mentioned a conspiracy theory at all in any response. I said "People want facts" very clearly. You deny facts, and invent bullshit to cover up that statement.
It's rather sad, yet comical, that you call me names and try to belittle me.. and for what? To prevent you from looking for facts? or other people from looking for facts? If it's you, who cares? Shut up and live in your cave. If it's others, then shame on you for keeping people chained in the cave.
One more quick point. I'm not agnostic either, I'm very sure of my answer. My point is not that someone should be agnostic. The point was that we all should be taught to answer the question for ourselves. The question is rather critical, and both ends of the spectrum preach their correctness without teaching people what the question really is, or how to work on a solution.
A secondary point, is that proof is not possible in either direction. I have done a lot of writing on that, but to be simple: We can not measure anything until after the Universe started. If nothing existed either way until the Universe sprang to life, claiming to be able to "prove" it's cause (or lack of cause) is impossible.
In my opinion, people struggling with the question are agnostic. That is a normal state of mind (I should state either struggling or refusing to work on the question). I would be willing to bet that even the most devout believers question their faith on occasion. That does not make them an atheist, or even agnostic. It means they are working on their belief. Atheists I would guess often wonder if they are correct as well.
I don't think any one is immune to questioning their faith. If you do, I think you would be a healthier person in the long run.
Sorry, but wrong on several accounts. Yes, I teach my kid old style Philosophy. That does not make him an atheist any more than it makes me an atheist. To claim I'm not a follower of traditional Theology would be true, but that is not atheism. Atheism is a belief in no deities at all, which would include a creator of the Universe. A creator would have to operate outside of the restrictions we have in our Universe, which would make them exactly the definition a deity.
As I hinted at, if you believe that there must be a creator then you will usually find Theology. I intentionally don't state what my Theology is, since it has no bearing on an answering the initial question. The initial question is extremely important however, and most people will never be taught how to work at a solution. People work very hard to convince people they are correct instead of teaching them to find a solution (Theists and atheists alike.).
Perhaps you are claiming that atheists believe the Universe can have a deity which created the Universe. If that is your claim then you need to make sure the Oxford, Websters, etc.. make a change to their dictionaries.
When I was younger, I thought pretty much just like you. Religion was something other people did, it made no sense and seemed like a waste of time. TV was way better than anything in a Church.
Most very excellent, What of us who don't watch Television? Is television necessary to be an atheist? Strawman number one.
Sorry, this is not a straw man at all, this was my opinion and perspective. I'm sure you won't interject that you know my opinion and perspective better than I. Perhaps you simply chose to ignore "I thought pretty much like you" which of course refers to "my thoughts".
Who needed social time and BBQ's after Church service?
Because as we all know, if you watch television, you cannot do those things? Heck, we'll give you the benefit of the doubt and call that strawman number two.
As with above, that was my opinion and perspective at the time. Since I never mentioned that one could not do those things, your call of a straw man argument is absolutely false. Rather ironic that a person claims "strawman" in a straw man fashion, but at the same time rather amusing. It bothers me that someone critiquing breaks a paragraph up in to two separate thoughts. Did you not make it through most of your High School English classes, or did you just forget what you learned? (That question is most definitely a fallacy, but a good one.)
During my time in the Military, I stumbled on to Philosophy, and found some very amazing questions. TV tried to feed me answers to these questions, but the answers they provided made no sense once I knew how to understand the questions, and the proposed answers.
No, seriously. Is your TV possessed or something? Mine just burps out garbage. My TV never tried to do anything.
TV can teach you facts, that's for sure. Does it teach thinking? That is questionable and very subjective. If you watch WW II history shows, you sure learn a lot about great battles in history. What you won't learn however is the purposes for which we go to war. You won't learn the politics people don't want to teach. Hell, in WW II there were no allies guilty of any war crimes. Them "Japs" and "Nazis" sure were though. TV didn't talk much about the US killing at least tens of thousands of innocent civilians, but I sure learned about all the civilians them Axis guys killed though.
I never learned Philosophy from TV, I learned a single perspective. While not absolutely universal, I think to deny that as mostly true is absurd. The most obvious reasoning is simply that TV does not have time to show alternative philosophies and perspectives within a given time slot. This is the commonly given reason if you read editorials and comments.
The TV tried to tell me the puzzles were all solved, yet there are no solution possible.
I think Satan took over your TV man.
You are guilty of assigning motive and Theology when none was provided. As mentioned above, there are logical reasons why shows are geared this way that have to do with Theology. It seems to me that you are just a bigot, but I'll keep reading.
Philosophers will teach you that much, assuming you will take the time to listen and learn.
I have spent literally nearly two decades trying to answer the questions, and unravel the fallacy people keep throwing in the way of the question. They are many, and complex, and from every side that claims to know an answer.
I claim to know not much at all, I do know a lot though. Unfortunately you are looking for an answer. And it is this - There is NO answer. There is only is. If that is not good enough for you, then you need to make a creator, and you need your creator in your own image.
That is your opinion, and I have my own. I believe yo
Thanks for the correction, my German is very rusty.
Just so you are aware, this is where I see danger in the post. "Consciousness is an illusion, along with free will." Given the current state of the world, claiming that people have no free will is a very alarming statement. That statement is exactly out of the Communist Manifesto, and was preached by Mao, Stalin, etc...
It could be that the person does not natively speak English, hence this translates poorly. However, since the fallacies and untrue statements are well thought out, it is more likely repeated propaganda.
You are intertwining two separate subjects, which until now you kept separate. The WTC collapse is what the Engineers are questioning and want re-opened. The physics for how the Government claims the towers collapsed is what is in question by Architects and Engineers. The physics given by the Government auditors simply do not work, and can not work.
For the crashes, you are still falling in to the same trap I pointed out before. A rotor for an engine does not shrink by 33% (roughly) during a collision. I would agree that a lot of physics are involved that would make parts and pieces end up scattered for a hefty distance. What's important to note is that in the collision area of the Pentagon, there were no wing marks in the building. There was only a few parts found for a much smaller jet engine than a 757 has. Is it something that was perhaps a model inside the building that ended up outside? Sure, it's possible. Even considering that was true, there are 4 757 engines missing from the crash site, in addition to other debris we see in every other commercial airline crash in history being missing. It's not logical, and makes no sense. I mentioned before that you need to establish comparisons to every other crash in history. Are you insisting that every other crash in history was a low speed crash? That is not a rational assumption, facts regarding all commercial crashes are readily available.
You claim I'm posting bullshit, yet you deny facts exist. Then you inject motives when none was provided, and your insistence that one is being presented is rather pathetic as well as illogical. People simply want the facts.
To be rather blunt: Anyone that involved in Engineering (as you are pretending to be), understands the importance of establishing facts. You deny that facts exist, and refuse to go look. You tell me to believe what memory would serve from 11 years ago on TV as opposed to establishing facts. You are not in Engineering, you are not being Scientific, you are purely spreading propaganda. You are bullshitting people, not I.
Try a Google search instead of propagating something not true. Here is one story, and here is another. These are what we know for sure, there are 20,000 more cases being investigated allegedly.
Slashdot Mirror
Guess what Mister delusional? I am a Veteran, and I never laid claim to blame in any post. I stated that the events required explanations since what we were told is not correct based on observational facts (which are simple to verify). You are the person that has repeatedly injected motives and blame. Re-read every post I made, and not one time will you find that I assigned blame to anyone.
Let me be perfectly candid: If the truth is that a pilot was ordered to shoot the plane down, I'm okay with that. We were not told they were shot down, we were told that they impacted and were destroyed. Either way, the reason "why" is secondary to noticing something called "facts" which clearly show that the given explanations do not work.
Ever wonder why are over 20,000 Engineers and Architects asking about the 9/11 events? In reality the motive does not make as much difference as making sure there is no impact to current and future architecture and Engineering. You probably will not even consider it rational to look. Hell in your own words 'those people are just crazy and dishonoring dead people' right? Because that's what you have been brainwashed in to believing. You can go read their thoughts at ae911truth.org, but probably won't because Fox News said it's bad.
Ever wonder why many Veterans are asking questions regarding all 9/11 events? If you have a rational thought in your head, the correlation with the logic for ae911truth would be obvious. I doubt you will get the logic any more than you would look in to a fact yourself. It's much easier to listen to TV and call anyone looking for answers names. Get help man, you are in pretty bad shape.
No more discussion, you are a horribly delusional person. Contrary to one of your previous statements, there is no straw man argument in that statement. If you were rational you would simply re-read this discussion and recognize it for yourself. Of course you believe your delusion to the point of ignoring facts, and using blatant and repeated fallacy to argue your opinion over facts. Even when something is pointed out as fallacy, you re-use the same argument over and over. Perhaps you should read up on what a fallacy is.
I still don't discount that you are a person paid for propaganda. If that's the case, you are poor at the job and should find a new line of work.
Thanks for proving my point. Misrepresenting statements given, and a blatant fallacy follows. I'm sure you can give me a million of them right?
I intentionally did not discuss proof, I said to said to seek it out instead of listening to fallacies (such as your second sentence).
What? Are you insane? Really you should put numbers like that to a better litmus test. I'd really like to see the questions posed to get the theism vs. atheism to know who is counted as well as the criteria. Notice that "Western Philosophy" is not a search criteria, yet every western Philosopher up until the late 1600s would be "Theist", which includes Ancient Greek Philosophy. Aristotle was sure there was a creator, but is he counted as Theist? Well, if I look at "Ancient Greek" nothing shows up except for Priori knowledge.
If the data is obviously skewed, then the data is worthless. Sorry, come up with some better numbers.
Interestingly, if you look at only the "Asian Philosophy" you will see atheism more where I would agree to western Philosophy in terms of numbers. Roughly 25% of Asian Philosophers lean toward atheism, and huge number of those counted in that 25% are relatively recent.
You should put a :) or something after your post so people don't think you are a peon working for an agenda and propagating such a Philosophy.
Well, maybe you are.. hell, I don't know..
The moral of the story is this: dissidents should airgap any system they use for sensitive/secret material.
What about the Free journalists in countries like the USA where they should not be considered "dissidents"? Perhaps this was just an oversight on your part. In the USA, many Journalists are called dissidents by US Government Agencies (CIA/DHS/TSA) but that is not correct constitutionally.
I genuinely do not understand how people don't get this. You want to push against the big boys? Assume they have tools you've never even imagined. It's just like sterilization in medicine. You don't know what the patient has, so you treat everything they touch like it's covered in plague. Diligence, children, diligence is the key to anonymity.
Is it wrong that this exists? Probably. Are you naive for believing that these types of tools aren't used every day? Absolutely.
As with my comment above, there is a danger in suggesting that _all_ journalists are dissidents, and that _any_ or _all_ Governments should be actively fighting against free journalism. In the last 50 years in the US, we have lost the wisdom of JFK. The full text can be found here in both edited and unedited form. Before you claim "but but conspiracy blah blah" go read the full fucking speech you lazy pricks! (not to be interpreted as the poster I'm responding to)
This deadly challenge imposes upon our society two requirements of direct concern both to the press and to the President–two requirements that may seem almost contradictory in tone, but which must be reconciled and fulfilled if we are to meet this national peril.I refer, first, to the need for a far greater public information; and, second, to the need for far greater official secrecy.
The very word “secrecy” is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings. We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it. Even today, there is little value in opposing the threat of a closed society by imitating its arbitrary restrictions. Even today, there is little value in insuring the survival of our nation if our traditions do not survive with it. And there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon by those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment. That I do not intend to permit to the extent that it is in my control. And no official of my Administration, whether his rank is high or low, civilian or military, should interpret my words here tonight as an excuse to censor the news, to stifle dissent, to cover up our mistakes or to withhold from the press and the public the facts they deserve to know.
But I do ask every publisher, every editor, and every newsman in the nation to reexamine his own standards, and to recognize the nature of our country’s peril. In time of war, the government and the press have customarily joined in an effort based largely on self-discipline, to prevent unauthorized disclosures to the enemy. In time of “clear and present danger,” the courts have held that even the privileged rights of the First Amendment must yield to the public’s need for national security.
I have added some emphasis on key items for consideration. We are beyond simply censoring news, we now have the NY Post sending stories pre-editor to CIA for preview. We now have media claiming racism on any criticism of Politics (hell, even Rush Limbaugh went off on that one today).
I implore you to read the full speech and keep things in context. Evaluate where we have gone in the last 50 years, inductive reason should tell you that it has not been forward. To claim "no sense in fighting technology" is an ignorant stance suggesting we should all just say fuckit and stop being free.
A jet motor is not the same as a normal fire, or people's houses would not be able to have a fireplace. I also did not say "explosion", I stated "controlled explosion". The difference to anyone with even a primitive knowledge of Physics would understand the difference.
What I am publishing is rational thinking, which was based on a response to a post which stated very similar to you "Anyone looking at facts is mentally ill". What you both are doing is called either 1) propaganda (in an attempt to manipulate people) or 2) Expressing a personal delusion.
There was absolutely no BS in any of my posts, contrary to your repeated instance at such. You simply deny facts, and claim that someone looking at facts is wrong to look. Why? You refute every fact I gave, from your first reply to me. If you had no interest in items 1. or 2. above, you would have A) kept quiet or B) checked facts. Instead, you went with the option not even listed, which was to display a child like tantrum, name call, and deny reality. You continue to modify facts to suit your delusional belief that nobody should look for facts, as you clearly demonstrate by modifying my statement regarding the metallurgy of Engines to be the metallurgy of the shell of an air craft. Stop and look at your irrational thinking! It's blatantly obvious, and extremely severe (To the point where I suggest perhaps it's time to visit a Psychologist and begin medication).
You continue with the fallacy of "it offends dead people to investigate" after I pointed out that it's a fallacy. As with my previous mention, I believe that this is strictly to protect your delusion. This would be fine by itself if you just denied everything and kept quiet, but you continue to deny all facts and attack someone pointing out facts.
Let me share an anecdote from a book called "Plato and a Platypus Walk in to a bar" by Thomas Cathcart and Daniel Klein. I'd strongly suggest that you read the book for a brief introduction to Philosophy. Page 33 (Logic).
Two men are making breakfast. As one is buttering the toast, he says "Did you ever notice that if you drop a piece of toast, it always lands butter side down?"
The second guy says "No, I bet it just seems that way because it's so unpleasant to clean up the mess when it lands butter side down. I bet it lands butter side up just as often."
The first guy says "Oh, yeah? Watch this." He drops the toast to the floor, where it lands butter side up.
The second guy says "See, I told you".
The first guy says, "Oh, I see what happened. I buttered the wrong side!"
That anecdote shows exactly what you are doing. You will most likely refuse to believe that just like you have repeatedly modified statements so suite your needs and refuted plain, clear, and easy to verify facts.
Seriously consider seeking professional help. I have pointed out repeatedly that you are not thinking rationally or critically. Your repeated answer has been to attack ad hominem, deny facts exist, and claim that everyone should share your belief system over verifiable facts. This level of delusion is rather worrisome, and the ad hominem attacks demonstrate that you could easily resort to violence in order to protect your delusion.
Considering your rather abusive tone, I think I have done very well in maintaining my composure in responses. My portion of this conversation is now concluded however, since there is no possible way to have an intelligent discussion with a person with the level of delusion you are displaying. Have a nice life, and I do hope you try and get better.
On further reflection, I'll ask if you could please keep the quotes in perspective. You made a rather absurd claim regarding "Philosophy", I gave a rhetorical response to make a point. If you go back and read, I think you will see my logic and rhetoric rather plainly.
My retort had nothing to do with you wishing to use a different definition for "atheism" than I showed is in current dictionaries. If you are using a definition from circa 1321, I'm okay with that. Just make the distinction so that I can understand your point of view.
I'm confused on how you are making a distinction. Answer this question: Would my definition of a "Creator" be a "deity" as I claim it is?
If you say no, I need to understand why you would say no.
If you say "yes", then I will ask how "Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities" does not fit my use of the definition?
I claim that the Universe must have a creator, and the creator must be a deity.
An atheist rejects that belief by definition correct? The definition does not state "atheists deny a belief in Theology".
Oh, it's so easy for you to call BS but did you bother to even look at how easy facts are to find? Here you go, now go pound sand up your lazy propagandist asshole. If you are still confused, from that data you can readily find photos (where they exist)as well as details surrounding the crashes. Such as air speeds, altitudes, etc.. Such as TWA Flight 260 which has images here.
I never claimed "911 is an inside job" as you once again inject as an appeal to emotion. Never, not one time. I stated that there are facts missing and incorrect from all 4 events on 9/11 that people are asking to have resolved. Go back and read what I wrote, and stop injecting _your_ fantasies in to what I wrote. You can go back and read them as often as you like, never did I claim what you state.
Next you will probably claim I was somehow able to edit my posts right? Your delusion has been thus far rather obvious.
Your whole last paragraph is a series of appeals to emotion. You learned them from TV didn't you? My guess is, that you still have not checked 1 thing for yourself. Nope, not 1. Even knowing TV tells lies you insist it can't lie. You don't see the appeal to emotion that "This "911 is an inside job" bullshit is an insult to a lot of dead people." is? If you don't, then you are absolutely blind. Come on now, it's not even a good fallacy. This is Google search easy to determine as fallacy.
Yeah, I'm sure you were pulling me up on evidence. Now you have 2 samples. Were you really just being lazy? Will you go look now? I'm guessing you won't, you will have more reasons why anyone asking for _facts_ should not do so. "Those fact seekers are just crazy conspiracy nut jobs, the TV said so!"
Oh, and from that sample gallery I provided you can see how much of a plane survives a crash. Wholly shit, that plane crashed in to a mountain which is at least as hard as a building. It was last seen in a high speed climb, which for that model of Air plane is roughly 300 Mph. Even prop engines are pretty damn solid, and that is proven by of all things.. science. And before you claim something stupid the answer is "NO! Another 100-150 Mhp will not magically make titanium alloy vanish. Various parts may separate, but the core parts are built to withstand explosions. You do know how jet engines work right? You do realize that the conversion of fuel to energy is a controlled explosion right? Hell, you will probably deny that too.. Or you will claim it was a tree that kept everything from the motors in tact, ignoring the fact that about 50 feet of 757 would have absorbed impact prior to the engines of a 757 hitting a wall. You will only claim knowledge of physics if it suits your fantasy world right?
I get the distinction you were getting at now, thank you for the clarification. I still don't agree, but that's why we differ in opinion :).
You seem to be claiming that a deity would have to have a defined power to be a deity? Or perhaps alternatively, that a Creator has no special powers? I'll contend that for the creator to make space, matter, energy, and make it all abide by a set of rules we know as Physics, it would require an incredible amount of power and knowledge. It would be very much "super human" power since it's way beyond our capacity physically, and mentally. This matches the definition of "deity" very well, in fact any definition you could convince yourself is valid.
Meritorious points made, well done! That said, I can't agree that I'm contradicting myself.
"First of all, you assume there "was" "nothing" and this "nothingness" is incomprehensible and inexpressible in any language."
To the first point regarding the assumption, I agree that is what I have. I don't hide that fact at all, I will tell you that my belief is my opinion at any given time.
To your second point, I disagree that it's incomprehensible. In my opinion, it's similar to claiming we can't comprehend "Zero". I will claim that we can, and we use that definition in all forms of mathematics. I'm not sure most people would be able to express that Zero is a concept as well as a number, which to me means that it's rather simple to use. I would agree that imagining a Universe devoid of everything is rather hard to comprehend, but is it incomprehensible? I don't believe so.
If I am correct that "nothing" is comprehensible, then I can soundly claim that I have logical assumption for the remainder. Those assumptions seems to be backed by Science. We can run simulations of the Universe's motion in reverse and see that there appears to be a point when there was in fact "nothing".
Perhaps you are referring to the elastic Universe theories. Where the Universe expands and contracts repeatedly, and we are in Nth instance of the expansion? If so, how does that change the basic premise of the initial question? Passed the obvious time difference for the age of the Universe, would we suddenly need no initial starting point? My answer to that question is that we would still need a starting point.
If you are simply asking "who created the creator" I'll answer that that this is a paradox, which like the other paradox you mentioned is really a nonsense question. The resolution for that exact paradox is also handled at the same time as the other paradoxes mentioned earlier. You can ponder forever but you will never solve it, and the solution has no bearing on the initial question.
Why do you pull such statements from thin air after sounding logical in your last post? It is utter nonsense to request 'define "definition"', this is a basic grammar rule required for rhetoric. And yes, Bill Clinton was wrong to ask for a definition of "is" for the same reason. You are typing the language, and if you fail to understand the rules, well that is not my problem. Both words are already defined, and I sample the most critical word from Websters.
deity noun \d--t, d-\ plural deities Definition of DEITY 1 a : the rank or essential nature of a god : divinity b capitalized : god 1, supreme being 2 : a god or goddess 3 : one exalted or revered as supremely good or powerful See deity defined for English-language learners See deity defined for kids Examples of DEITY
If you disagree that a Creator would be a deity, you know the thing that instantly created matter and space and energy and physics, and wish to claim that any old Joe could do the same thing, I'm okay with that. That is not your claim however. You claim that definitions do not exist and that you have no way of knowing what the term "define" means.
You should really check a dictionary before you make statements like you did. From Merriam Webster (Item 2 since Item 1 is the archaic) a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity ". If you don't like Webster, go look at Oxford, or hell check Wiki if you dislike large Dictionary companies and prefer Open Source solutions.
The more traditional philosophies stress never knowing anything, and sitting around talking about proving things you can't know.
I smell bullshit! This is not even a good fabrication. You obviously have no clue what Philosophy is outside of what someone told you, do you? Well, it's never to late to educate yourself!
To your first point, I ask "Huh?" If you have no Universe how do you have rules? That is an extremely illogical perspective. I was trying to work on an analogy for that, but I can't think up anything suitable. We know that the Universe went from nothing to something in an instant, look at the science! Nothing means no space, no mass, no energy, and of course no rules of physics.
To your Aquinas comment, I agree he did not do a very good job on that one. Not even a good study to be honest, unless you want to learn "How not to Philosophy". With that said, the terms of a creator best come from really Aristotle in my opinion. If you use his argument, you can't really go wrong. Honestly most of my works of late have shown how "Science" does not change his argument. Aristotle was absolutely brilliant in his thoughts.
Now, before you go all Kraus on that, it's tired and weak also, remember that the latest particle Physics work requires a vacuum to exist and the quantum physics to already exist. If you are as bright as you seem to be, you will see that Aristotle's theory still holds true.
To the paradox you point to, the answer is in PHY 200, or should be. The same answer is true for "If God is all powerful can he make a stone so heavy he can't lift it?" and "How many Angels fit on the head of a pin?". The questions are completely invalid, so should be ignored just like you would ignore someone asking "Why is red so blue?". Those are nonsense questions. You could spend a life time trying to question their validity, but why would you?
To your last point, please check the Wiki page, Oxford dictionary, Websters Dictionary, and any other reasonable reference for the definition of Atheist. "Anti Theist" is universally defined, and a belief that no deities exist. I have already pointed out in other responses to this thread how a Creator of the Universe _must_ be a deity by definition. You may disagree, but I will simply point you to the same sources for definitions on "deity" as I will for "atheist". Is is possible that are simply agnostic claiming to be an atheist? Please don't inject a specific Theology in to that question or answer. In fact you don't even have to answer it. Perhaps you don't view the definition as literally as I do.
...here is what is important. If you take the time to try and answer the question for yourself, you may be surprised at how low the probability there is for the Universe not needing a creator
Ah. This old argument again. If you assume that a creator with the power to create the universe already exists it makes it easier to explain how the universe could exist. (duh) Have you ever tried to figure out what the chances are of such a creator existing are?
Actually you are thinking from a different perspective. Have you studied Aristotle's uncaused cause at all? To believe that nothing caused the Universe to exist is a rather strange phenomenon. In the Universe, everything we see relates to cause and effect. It's very logical to believe that "something" created the Universe given that we see cause and effect in absolutely everything. So yes, I have actually spent nearly 20 years working on the answer to the question, and the odds that "something" caused the Universe to exist are extremely good. In fact in real odds, the chances are 1 in Infinity that there was no cause for the Universe to happen. If something caused the Universe to exist, would that not be a "Creator"? Please keep the Theology out of the possible answers, since it does not matter at this point.
If not, the only thing you are doing here is moving the focus from the problem of the improbability of the existence of the universe to the improbability of the existence of some eternal omnipotent god. This is not in any way an improvement since the likelihood of such a being existing is a lot more improbable than the universe being created by random chance.
Wait, you are putting to much emphasis on "being" Is there a creator is not the same is "is there a being" is it? I guess in ignorance you could claim that, but a "Creator" would be both more and less than a "being". The real question should be "Was there something that caused the Universe to exist?" If the answer is "yes" then the event that caused us to be would be a "Creator" right? "Being" implies a body, shape, specific powers. "Creator" would have "created" space, matter, energy, and all of the rules of Physics simultaneously. No body, or shape is required. What is required, is an incredible action beyond our comprehension. Creating everything from matter to energy, and all of the rules for how things operate in an instant is pretty dang cool.
That is unless, of course, you have figured out something no one else ever has: how this being came about and how it acquired the power to create the universe.
That statement is a Paradox you learn to resolve in Philosophy 200, not even the 2X0 or 3XX level classes. Take the class, it's educational!
If so, I, and a large part of the rest of humanity, would really like to know. You could even make a few bucks by writing a book about it.
Actually I have been working on a book for a long time, but I am not paid to be a writer so years from done.
Thanks for the perspective, and apologies for making an assumption. When I referred to the state of the world, I should have been more clear. There are 2 Philosophies in contention, which have quite honestly been in contention for a very long time (thousands of years at least). If you understand "The allegory of the Cave" then this should be rather obvious. It is my belief that we are nearing a historical collision between those Philosophies. This is not the first collision, they have collided through history very often. Sometimes small (See the initial Sophist movement) and sometimes rather large (see Stalin, WW II, hundreds of events during the cold war, etc.. etc..)
Personally, I see the Obama health care issue as a side show (for lack of better terms, not literally since it has implications on the whole scenario). The current push from the US is a bit more sinister. The "establishment" wishes to rid the world of those outside of the cave, and re-shackle those in the cave to ensure they don't move for a very long time. That is a Sophist agenda dating back thousands of years, and something that Socrates and Plato fought very hard against.
To get that perspective I have to zoom as far out as possible from the picture, ignore the small fights, and look for the real war. It's not easy to do mind you, and as a personal note I struggle with that constantly.
One thing through history that is very consistent is the stage being set for the larger battles. De-humanizing people is always a precursor, which is exactly what the statement "you have no free will" does. Over time, people begin to question their own free will and their own humanity. History teaches us this as well, and to see the success you only need to look at the Communist revolutions.
I could be wrong about the whole concept, and I admit that possibility. I challenge that belief rather constantly. It's much easier to watch the puppet shows we are given.
As mentioned previously, I have no idea whether the person was simply repeating propaganda or not. I view this type of propaganda as extremely detrimental to humanity. I recognize the harm it does long term to society. I try to challenge that type of propaganda when I see it, which is a lesson learned from reading, studying, and understanding Socrates.
The burden of proof is in the published work. Start reading, there is probably a lot to catch up on! Descartes, Plato, Aristotle, Aquinas, Socrates, Einstein (make sure you don't simply review the atheist propaganda quote, read his complete journal), and yes Einstein was a Philosopher as well as a Physicist, and the list could go on for a very long time. Those are starting points however, and you can read their contemporaries and counter parts, then continue.
To your second point, that is absolutely a false dichotomy. Atheists by definition believe in no deities. If the Universe has a Creator, the Creator must be by definition a deity. The rules of physics did not exist prior to the Universe being created, so the Creator must have had powers beyond our comprehension in order to create the matter and energy, and the laws of Physics which are bound inside of our Universe. Perhaps you are using words contrary to their definition in order to suite your belief system?
You, not I, tarnish the reputation of Engineers and Architects. You change the subject often, invent statements, and choose to ignore facts. As stated previously, you are doing so to either spread propaganda or protect your beliefs. Since your posts remind me of a child having a tantrum, I'm guessing it's the latter.
I am not a MSCE contrary to you insisting such nonsense. I won't even begin to mention what my credentials are because you insist that facts do not exist, that people should not investigate facts, and that decade old TV is the only truth you want or that anyone should use. You have repeatedly stated that anyone looking at facts is just a conspiracy person, and everyone should trust their memory from TV over a decade ago to find facts. It takes a very sad person, to dismiss facts as you have. You don't deserve to know my credentials since you show that you completely lack credibility and logical thought.
As mentioned earlier, it would not take a conspiracy that most people consider. How about a more valid way of explaining the problem, such as I earlier mentioned? There are some things that should be explained in all 4 of the major events of 9/11. Why on Earth would people start looking? This is a normal critical thinking step called correlation. If there are issues with answers given regarding WTC perhaps there are issues with more of the events. I notice that you dropped the WTC questions and just went with something that hurts your beliefs even more. A true champion for the propaganda!
I have no idea whether you are spreading propaganda to convince others not to look, or simply as a protection of your weak belief system. Investigating facts would challenge your beliefs, and that's rather traumatic to the mind. Go talk to a friend in the psychological field, they will tell you that same exact thing.. which is another proven fact (which you will probably ignore).
During my time in the Military I had to visit several crash sites. These were of course not civilian crashes, but military air craft. I have seen dead bodies in the wrecks, and in the case of a fighter crash just bits of bodies. I have also seen how jet engine parts stay remarkably solid even after a mid air collision between two F16's flying at over Mach 1.2. I have some real life experience to back a perspective, however I rely more on facts regarding other crashes with civilian jets since there is a massive difference between how Military and Civilian air craft are constructed. I won't rely on a propeller plane from the 1940's to determine how jet engines react in a crash however, doing so is foolish. What is interesting though, and perhaps will help you connect dots is your statement "over a lot of landscape in little pieces". Go look at images of both the Pentagon and Penn crash and look for pieces.. you won't find enough pieces to make up a Lear jet, let alone a 747. No body parts, no clothing, no luggage broken open.
Science requires facts, not opinion and belief. I never stated that the whole jet would remain in tact so stop inventing bullshit to back your weak beliefs or to spread propaganda. Many engine components would remain in tact, or at least mostly in tact. But of course that logic is beyond your belief system, so you will invent more bullshit to counter instead of ever going to look for a single fact. You ignore the fact that the single rotor photographed was absolutely in tact, even if it was 1/3rd the diameter of a 757 engine rotor.
In fact the only thing you have to tell you it's a civilian jet crash is someones word. Do I blindly trust the word of companies that have been caught fabricating and editing "news", and were sued up to the US Supreme court which ruled "News is Entertainment so they don't have to tell the truth, and can modify and fabricate information at will"? The answer to that is simply "Nope, not a chance in hell". I'm betting that you will deny any court cases ever existed just like you ignore other plain and open facts. That one really hurts
Ooooh, a person claiming to work with Engineers can call names. I'm so intimidated and belittled by you. And you can read and comprehend so well.. wow, maybe I should go pee myself or something now? Oh, sorry I won't do that
First understand that plane crashes involve speeds vastly faster than car crashes, and that planes are more fragile
Hello Captain Obvious! I stated "Compare these crashes to ever other commercial air line crash in history" which would include of all things.. other air planes traveling at different speeds. I never mentioned a car, or a boat, or a jet fighter, or a moon lander, or anything else you wish to invent. So you are not just a propagandist, you are partially illiterate?
, and then take another look at your conspiracy theory.
YOU are the only one that mentioned a conspiracy theory at all in any response. I said "People want facts" very clearly. You deny facts, and invent bullshit to cover up that statement.
It's rather sad, yet comical, that you call me names and try to belittle me.. and for what? To prevent you from looking for facts? or other people from looking for facts? If it's you, who cares? Shut up and live in your cave. If it's others, then shame on you for keeping people chained in the cave.
One more quick point. I'm not agnostic either, I'm very sure of my answer. My point is not that someone should be agnostic. The point was that we all should be taught to answer the question for ourselves. The question is rather critical, and both ends of the spectrum preach their correctness without teaching people what the question really is, or how to work on a solution.
A secondary point, is that proof is not possible in either direction. I have done a lot of writing on that, but to be simple: We can not measure anything until after the Universe started. If nothing existed either way until the Universe sprang to life, claiming to be able to "prove" it's cause (or lack of cause) is impossible.
In my opinion, people struggling with the question are agnostic. That is a normal state of mind (I should state either struggling or refusing to work on the question). I would be willing to bet that even the most devout believers question their faith on occasion. That does not make them an atheist, or even agnostic. It means they are working on their belief. Atheists I would guess often wonder if they are correct as well.
I don't think any one is immune to questioning their faith. If you do, I think you would be a healthier person in the long run.
Sorry, but wrong on several accounts. Yes, I teach my kid old style Philosophy. That does not make him an atheist any more than it makes me an atheist. To claim I'm not a follower of traditional Theology would be true, but that is not atheism. Atheism is a belief in no deities at all, which would include a creator of the Universe. A creator would have to operate outside of the restrictions we have in our Universe, which would make them exactly the definition a deity.
As I hinted at, if you believe that there must be a creator then you will usually find Theology. I intentionally don't state what my Theology is, since it has no bearing on an answering the initial question. The initial question is extremely important however, and most people will never be taught how to work at a solution. People work very hard to convince people they are correct instead of teaching them to find a solution (Theists and atheists alike.).
Perhaps you are claiming that atheists believe the Universe can have a deity which created the Universe. If that is your claim then you need to make sure the Oxford, Websters, etc.. make a change to their dictionaries.
When I was younger, I thought pretty much just like you. Religion was something other people did, it made no sense and seemed like a waste of time. TV was way better than anything in a Church.
Most very excellent, What of us who don't watch Television? Is television necessary to be an atheist? Strawman number one.
Sorry, this is not a straw man at all, this was my opinion and perspective. I'm sure you won't interject that you know my opinion and perspective better than I. Perhaps you simply chose to ignore "I thought pretty much like you" which of course refers to "my thoughts".
Who needed social time and BBQ's after Church service?
Because as we all know, if you watch television, you cannot do those things? Heck, we'll give you the benefit of the doubt and call that strawman number two.
As with above, that was my opinion and perspective at the time. Since I never mentioned that one could not do those things, your call of a straw man argument is absolutely false. Rather ironic that a person claims "strawman" in a straw man fashion, but at the same time rather amusing. It bothers me that someone critiquing breaks a paragraph up in to two separate thoughts. Did you not make it through most of your High School English classes, or did you just forget what you learned? (That question is most definitely a fallacy, but a good one.)
During my time in the Military, I stumbled on to Philosophy, and found some very amazing questions. TV tried to feed me answers to these questions, but the answers they provided made no sense once I knew how to understand the questions, and the proposed answers.
No, seriously. Is your TV possessed or something? Mine just burps out garbage. My TV never tried to do anything.
TV can teach you facts, that's for sure. Does it teach thinking? That is questionable and very subjective. If you watch WW II history shows, you sure learn a lot about great battles in history. What you won't learn however is the purposes for which we go to war. You won't learn the politics people don't want to teach. Hell, in WW II there were no allies guilty of any war crimes. Them "Japs" and "Nazis" sure were though. TV didn't talk much about the US killing at least tens of thousands of innocent civilians, but I sure learned about all the civilians them Axis guys killed though.
I never learned Philosophy from TV, I learned a single perspective. While not absolutely universal, I think to deny that as mostly true is absurd. The most obvious reasoning is simply that TV does not have time to show alternative philosophies and perspectives within a given time slot. This is the commonly given reason if you read editorials and comments.
The TV tried to tell me the puzzles were all solved, yet there are no solution possible.
I think Satan took over your TV man.
You are guilty of assigning motive and Theology when none was provided. As mentioned above, there are logical reasons why shows are geared this way that have to do with Theology. It seems to me that you are just a bigot, but I'll keep reading.
Philosophers will teach you that much, assuming you will take the time to listen and learn.
I have spent literally nearly two decades trying to answer the questions, and unravel the fallacy people keep throwing in the way of the question. They are many, and complex, and from every side that claims to know an answer.
I claim to know not much at all, I do know a lot though. Unfortunately you are looking for an answer. And it is this - There is NO answer. There is only is. If that is not good enough for you, then you need to make a creator, and you need your creator in your own image.
That is your opinion, and I have my own. I believe yo
Thanks for the correction, my German is very rusty.
Just so you are aware, this is where I see danger in the post. "Consciousness is an illusion, along with free will." Given the current state of the world, claiming that people have no free will is a very alarming statement. That statement is exactly out of the Communist Manifesto, and was preached by Mao, Stalin, etc...
It could be that the person does not natively speak English, hence this translates poorly. However, since the fallacies and untrue statements are well thought out, it is more likely repeated propaganda.
You are intertwining two separate subjects, which until now you kept separate. The WTC collapse is what the Engineers are questioning and want re-opened. The physics for how the Government claims the towers collapsed is what is in question by Architects and Engineers. The physics given by the Government auditors simply do not work, and can not work.
For the crashes, you are still falling in to the same trap I pointed out before. A rotor for an engine does not shrink by 33% (roughly) during a collision. I would agree that a lot of physics are involved that would make parts and pieces end up scattered for a hefty distance. What's important to note is that in the collision area of the Pentagon, there were no wing marks in the building. There was only a few parts found for a much smaller jet engine than a 757 has. Is it something that was perhaps a model inside the building that ended up outside? Sure, it's possible. Even considering that was true, there are 4 757 engines missing from the crash site, in addition to other debris we see in every other commercial airline crash in history being missing. It's not logical, and makes no sense. I mentioned before that you need to establish comparisons to every other crash in history. Are you insisting that every other crash in history was a low speed crash? That is not a rational assumption, facts regarding all commercial crashes are readily available.
You claim I'm posting bullshit, yet you deny facts exist. Then you inject motives when none was provided, and your insistence that one is being presented is rather pathetic as well as illogical. People simply want the facts.
To be rather blunt: Anyone that involved in Engineering (as you are pretending to be), understands the importance of establishing facts. You deny that facts exist, and refuse to go look. You tell me to believe what memory would serve from 11 years ago on TV as opposed to establishing facts. You are not in Engineering, you are not being Scientific, you are purely spreading propaganda. You are bullshitting people, not I.
Try a Google search instead of propagating something not true. Here is one story, and here is another. These are what we know for sure, there are 20,000 more cases being investigated allegedly.