Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
FREE E-BOOKS
Get the book "Why There Is No God" and one more book for FREE!
Sign up below for the Atheist Republic Newsletter to get the books.
Record Your Message!
Record your voice here for it to be aired on the Atheist Republic Voicemails Podcast.
Send us your views and opinions, your personal stories, messages of support, comments on recent news, or any comments you would like to share about your part of the world.
Note : By clicking record you are allowing us to broadcast your message on any of our platforms.
Affiliate Disclaimer
Links to atheist related books, shirts and movies and other atheism related products are affiliate links.
All proceeds will go to keeping the Atheist Republic website up and running; providing resources, advocacy, community tools and encouragement to atheists all over the world.
Why suppose that causation is an objective feature of things-in-themselves?
I believe there was a beginning but being agnostic I`m not certain who or what brought it to fruition.Some claim it was a transcendent caused by a particular God Others like physicist Sean Carroll say they are still making models to determine the proper cause.Will we ever find an answer, you just don`t know.
Well some of us think we know ...
I believe that using the God of the Gaps theory is shortchanging things a bit.Why just because something comes into being you can`t honestly say it was a God.There may be a myriad of reasons that science hasn`t come across yet.After all science really hasn`t been around all that long compared to religions and gods.
Who's using God of the gaps?
you are, your inviting a God into the picture to fill the gap of why everything exist.But you know as well as I do that you can`t prove any God or Gods. Just by parroting that there was a cause for existence and that is God is just a simple argument with no foundations.
What? No I'm not filling any gap. And do not tell me what I know. I know I can prove a god exists. In fact, I just did. I don't know what you think the nine points were if not a set of premises and a conclusion.
Do you know the difference between an argument and evidence?
Yes an argument is a set of premises that support a conclusion. Evidence is something that would suggest a certain proposition is true. Why do you ask?
You have provided an argument / claim that an intellect is the prime mover. A claim that you have not supported with any evidence that such an intellect exists.
The fact that it is an intellect is an entirely separate argument. And it happens to be one that I'm not well versed in. There are plenty of Christians, however, that are in our Skype group who could explain the argument to you.
I have heard the argument. I asked for evidence to support any prime mover theory you may assert Again , I ask if you know the difference between an argument and evidence?
You are aware that an argument can be used as evidence?
No! Claims demand evidence.
Writing down a formal proof for A (or in this case plagiarizing one from Aquinas by pasting here as your own) is not the same as proving A.
/e on a side note: I can't believe it took me this long to notice, but apparently you've been plagiarizing Aquinas in other threads as well.
79a7f1bc0165ea184b62ed4623194efc
1. Are you telling me this entire time, you didn't know these were Aquinas' five ways? I've only mentioned Aquinas about 10 times. The title of this thread was initially "Aquinas' Second Way: Argument from Efficient Causes". I'm not plagiarizing. Look for yourself. In my reply to comment 46 I literally say these words: "What? Anselm? This argument is from Aquinas. He has nothing to do with Anselm. The ontological argument is nonsense."
2. Good god have you no integrity? And then this: "Writing down a formal proof for A... is not the same as proving A." WHAT? YES that is EXACTLY what it is. Jesus Christ.
So you cited the source 46 posts after you presented his work as your own; and you don't think that is plagiarism?
So wait, you felt the need to cited it, then removed the citation (for some reason); and now you are surprised you are receiving accusations of plagiarism?
A plagiarist questioning my integrity; too rich!/e Well I see now you have edited the original post to include the source of the material you posted. Better late than never!
You're supposed to be familiar with basic Aquinas arguments. I took the Aquinas part out because I wanted to illustrate the nature of the argument (proof of god) instead. There weren't enough characters. And that isn't the only time I mentioned Aquinas. Go look at the other threads like the Argument from Motion or the Argument from Possibility and Necessity. Not to mention I have the titles of these arguments posted so you can Google them. When I say you have no integrity, I mean you are willing to go to any length to slander your opponent. This is so obviously NOT plagiarism. I edited the post so no one could go off saying I was claiming this argument was my own. What a nonsensical lie. I didn't claim these arguments were mine EVER. I seriously suspected people would know these. It would be like being in a debate about evolution and mentioning the structure of DNA but not citing Watson and Crick. No one in that situation would think you were trying to steal Watson and Crick's model. Because they would have at least some knowledge of the subject. Now please address the point I made. A proof does prove things. You ignored this to continue smearing me. If you can't focus on the issue and you're going to keep lying about plagiarism, then I simply can't discuss things with you. This is why I operate on Skype. Communication is just lost in text. I can't continue this conversation unless it is done in Skype.
Sorry I didn't get that memo. In case I lost other memos; what other stuff am I "supposed" to be familiar with?
So when your desire to cite your source came into conflict with getting your point across (not enough resources for both), your solution was to remove the citation; and you were surprised you were labelled a plagiarist? What is even more disturbing is you aren't claiming you didn't know better, or that you just forgot (it happens); you seem to be stating that you intentionally did this thing. You said it yourself, you specifically edited it to remove the citation. I guess we are at an impasse here.
Take this as a life lesson learned very cheaply: making this mistake here got you some verbal (well written) abuse from me. In other places this could instantly end a promising career/education.
V.S.
You might notice, my accusation of plagiarism is a direct response to this post of yours.
So you operate on a voip platform where there can be no history of what you've said, to hold your feet to the fire, so to say? Makes sense to me!
Yeah, apparently not!
Ok we can't converse anymore. You obviously are just here to distract from the point. If you don't know that what I did wasn't plagiarism, then I'm very sorry for you. You should have known these arguments. You're not educated enough on the subject. Not to mention I DID cite the source MULTIPLE times and you STILL are insistent upon calling me a plagiarist. You even accuse me of using Skype because there's no history of what I said. Unbelievable that anyone would consider having a conversation with you given how you act. I use Skype because this misunderstanding on your part would never have happened. The link to the Skype group is in the original post. If you decide not to join, then I'm afraid these are the last words I utter in your direction.
I never did that, and this brings up an interesting example. If we were on voip right now it would just be your word against mine, but luckily we are not:
I noted that you operate on a platform that does not maintain a history (and this bothers me for the reason I listed). NOT that you you chose the platform because it does not maintain a history. There could be lots of reasons why you chose that platform, a good guess might be because it is relatively easy to implement. But now that you mention it: perhaps the lady doth protest too much.
"So you operate on a voip platform where there can be no history of what you've said, to hold your feet to the fire, so to say? Makes sense to me!" You cut that last part out for a reason. You were certainly implying I chose Skype for this reason. You then continued that implication with the next point you made. If we were on Skype right now, there would be less confusion in tone or intended meaning so this whole conversation wouldn't have happened. You would never have wrongly accused me a plagiarism.
Five hours ago you said I accused you of it:
Now you say I implied it:
I wonder what it will be 5 hours from now?
Actually the thought that you had chosen it because there was no records, didn't even cross my mind until you said I accused you of it. The "makes sense" to me part was sarcasm meaning that it don't make sense to me to have a debate on a system with no record. Isn't it funny how you twisted all of that into an attack on your person?
I think you've posted more than once something to the effect : that this written format can be confusing (I do agree with you here). Then you go on to say "You were certainly implying I chose Skype for this reason". Isn't it odd how you can be so certain about something you repeatedly told us is confusing?
I obviously did misinterpret your intention with my comment. I still think implicatory accusation is possible, but you didn't have any intent to imply that. I assume I interpreted this as an accusation because of your previous accusation of plagiarism which I still think is somewhat ridiculous considering I did give him credit multiple times before your accusation. It's possible you misunderstood my intent, but I never took credit for any of these arguments. And I did assume everyone had heard these before. I would like to apologize for any of my behavior when I was under the impression you were accusing me of dishonesty. Would you like to continue this discussion on Skype? I honestly do think it would lead to less issues. Not to mention, we have many Christians who are more versed than I in philosophy.
Also Skype does maintain history. I'm pretty sure currently the history can be maid available to anyone who joins. But so long as you don't have it set up to delete, you can FOR SURE look at history you were part of. So his whole point of it being a platform that doesn't share history is wrong. The only time this would be inaccurate is within an hour of time you can delete messages.
Remember I said the voip platform:
I really doubt that Skype itself even keeps that data, but for fun lets assume they did and made it available. How would you then view it? Hexdump it in to a text file then what?
He was referring to text history.
Right, that is why I specifically stated voip in the beginning so I wouldn't have to deal with someone chiming in that Skype keeps text history. But I'll be damned if someone didn't do it anyway!
Again confirming my point that Skype is better. So much less miscommunication.
There are other people in the group that can verify plus you can record calls.
Pages