Have you tried reading the NT in the correct order?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Good to see that our board antitheists are up to speed with the ''There are some questions which shouldn't be asked'' bit an Idea direct from Atheist central (Krauss et al). we all know what philosophy this comes from don't we lads.

It's just short hand for your inherent intellectual totalitarianism....
after 3 Gords and Shakes....''Ve ask Ze questions.''

Oh, bollocks. It has nothing to do with "Some questions shouldn't be asked" and everything to do with the fact that merely being able to ask a question doesn't mean that there's any answer to it, so you have to be on your guard against filling in the gaps with whatever self-serving, convenient madey-uppy answer that pleases you.

But of course, if you'd read the last few posts, or more to the point if you were capable of understanding them without the usual bullshit glasses on, you'd have grasped this already.

Anyway, I thought you were supposed to be leaving?

But Shaker it is a fact that when antitheists are brought to the big questions such as origins of life, the universe and everything they tend to baulk. Russell did it, Dawkins does it, Krauss does it, Gordon's done it and you do it.

OK it may not be in terms of an outright ''you must not ask these questions'' but more of a schmoozed ''maybe you shouldn't asks these questions''. That antitheists wish to hold the inquisitorial position is I would have thought well demonstrated on this forum.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Having been accused of intellectual totalitarianism

Yes, and just look who by 

coming out with a statement for a perfectly reasonable idea such as Lewis ''satisfied desire'' as ''Dreadful tripe'' without adequate foundation does not bode well for your defence that you are not an intellectual totalitarian.

If I really were an intellectual totalitarian I'd have been able to stop you from wheeling out "philoosophical naturalism" every other post for absolutely no reason.

P.S. Anything by Lewis being "perfectly reasonable" - thanks for the laughs, Vlad 

That's the beauty of intellectual totalitarianism. You can do it all in your head!

[Shaker]

Maybe I am being thick or something, but Vlad's posts make as much sense to me as those speaking in tongues, aka gobbledegook! 

You're not wrong. Instead of being able to construct a logical argument he has his stock words and phrases - "philosophical naturalism"; "intellectual totalitarianism"; "shamanistically" and so forth - which he heard somewhere once, thought they sounded good and has been chucking into every second post ever since.

[Shaker]

But Shaker it is a fact that when antitheists are brought to the big questions such as origins of life, the universe and everything they tend to baulk. Russell did it, Dawkins does it, Krauss does it, Gordon's done it and you do it.

Saying "We don't know; we're still working on it" is not "baulking"; it's an honest appraisal of the state of affairs and an equally honest refusal to claim certain knowledge where none currently exists - something I'd have thought you would have approved of.

OK it may not be in terms of an outright ''you must not ask these questions''

So your earlier statement was false, then.

but more of a schmoozed ''maybe you shouldn't asks these questions''.

Because it makes no sense to ask some questions. For possibly the third time, merely being able to ask a question doesn't imply that it has an answer.

That antitheists wish to hold the inquisitorial position is I would have thought well demonstrated on this forum.

No, only to you, and only because you see any criticism of and challenge to religious ideas as anti-theism, about which you have a raging obsession.

[Gordon]

So, do these 'indications' bear any resemblance to verifiable evidence?

Do any of the counter arguments resemble verifiable evidence, Gordon?  No.  They are all dependent on human assumptions, guesswork and extrapolations from time-bound understandings.

Nice attempt at shifting the burden of proof - again.

So, tell me two things; first, in what way is the force of gravity dependent on 'human assumptions, guesswork and extrapolations from time-bound understandings' and second, do you think that 'why is there gravity' (as opposed to what is gravity) is a valid question to ask?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

But Shaker it is a fact that when antitheists are brought to the big questions such as origins of life, the universe and everything they tend to baulk. Russell did it, Dawkins does it, Krauss does it, Gordon's done it and you do it.

Saying "We don't know; we're still working on it" is not "baulking";

No but suggesting questions or questioning are impertinent is.

Krauss for example doesn't end his work on why something rather than nothing with ''a don't know'' but a schmoozed ''perhaps we shouldn't ask a question like that''...presumably because a we don't know would have undermined his whole enterprize''.
Dawkins and Russell have definitely stated that questions about the origin of the universe may be impertinent.

[Nearly Sane]

Did they actually use the word impertinent? As for Krauss, why are you filling in his motivation?

[Nearly Sane]

Also, isn't there an attempt here to say that asking the question 'Does asking why about the universe make any sense?' Is something that shouldn't be asked by the whyvians?

[Shaker]

Dawkins and Russell have definitely stated that questions about the origin of the universe may be impertinent.

Where? Quotes/links, please.

[Shaker]

Also, isn't there an attempt here to say that asking the question 'Does asking why about the universe make any sense?' Is something that shouldn't be asked by the whyvians?

I fear an endless recursion coming on but I know what you mean, NS 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

OK it may not be in terms of an outright ''you must not ask these questions''

So your earlier statement was false, then.

but more of a schmoozed ''maybe you shouldn't asks these questions''.

Because it makes no sense to ask some questions. For possibly the third time, merely being able to ask a question doesn't imply that it has an answer.

Firstly No it's not wrong because you are merely asking people politely not to asks those questions. Why want that?

Secondly I'm sure you are right but these are questions like
''Why something and not nothing''. '' What caused the universe''.

These are questions which the great saints of antitheism are inviting us to ''move swiftly on from'' to questions where they think they have more of a chance.

[Shaker]

Secondly I'm sure you are right but these are questions like
''Why something and not nothing''. '' What caused the universe''.

These are questions which the great saints of antitheism are inviting us to ''move swiftly on from'' to questions where they think they have more of a chance.

If it didn't penetrate the first three times, it's probably not likely to a fourth time and I'm not repeating it again.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Also, isn't there an attempt here to say that asking the question 'Does asking why about the universe make any sense?' Is something that shouldn't be asked by the whyvians?

Is the question where did God come from pertinent?

[Shaker]

Also, isn't there an attempt here to say that asking the question 'Does asking why about the universe make any sense?' Is something that shouldn't be asked by the whyvians?

Is the question where did God come from pertinent?

It's a pertinent question to ask of people who think that God is responsible for the universe, most certainly.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Why should the question ''where did the universe come from?'' not be pertinent?

[Shaker]

Because "come from" implies that there was some prior state or mode that the universe sprang out of, and there's no reason to think that this is the case.

[Enki]

Also, isn't there an attempt here to say that asking the question 'Does asking why about the universe make any sense?' Is something that shouldn't be asked by the whyvians?

I fear an endless recursion coming on but I know what you mean, NS 

I'm just going out for a moment
Why?
to make a cup of tea.
Why?
because I'm thirsty.
Why?
because it's hot.
Why?
because the sun's shining.
Why?
because it is summer
Why?
because that's when it is.
Why?
why don't you stop saying why?
Why?
Tea-time. That's Why.
High-time-you-stopped-saying-why-time.
What?

Michael Rosen

 

[Nearly Sane]

Is the question where did God come from pertinent?

That would depend on the definition of God, surely? Under some definitions, it could be, under others it would be nonsensical. That said, I know of no definitions that are not logically contradictory or meaningless, so until that barrier were cleared it would be the same as asking where did floghunmpoptibop come from.

[Nearly Sane]

Because "come from" implies that there was some prior state or mode that the universe sprang out of, and there's no reason to think that this is the case.

The problem with a lot of the phrasing of such questions is that they are logically nonsensical in terms of the way we think and express ourselves. So if the universe is the entirety of space then 'where' and 'come from' are meaningless in the sentence. This applies, perhaps even more clearly' to questions involving time and that 'why' assumes a view of cause and effect that is based on time means even its non teleological use about an concept when our idea of time breaks down is reduced to meaningless hand waving.

[Shaker]

Exactly so.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Because "come from" implies that there was some prior state or mode that the universe sprang out of, and there's no reason to think that this is the case.

The problem with a lot of the phrasing of such questions is that they are logically nonsensical in terms of the way we think and express ourselves. So if the universe is the entirety of space then 'where' and 'come from' are meaningless in the sentence. This applies, perhaps even more clearly' to questions involving time and that 'why' assumes a view of cause and effect that is based on time means even its non teleological use about an concept when our idea of time breaks down is reduced to meaningless hand waving.

....And this argument could not be applied to the same questions asked about God?

Looks like you've been caught specially pleading.

[Nearly Sane]

The other problem that I often see illustrated on here is the continued use of philosophical concepts after removing the base axioms on which they are based. The Kalam is the classic for this which assumes that there is such a thing as a naturalistic approach of cause and effect, and builds that into a philosophical position,but that creates the idea of a first cause which effortlessly kicks away the very ladder that it is built on. It's like a virtual Indian rope trick and has the same validity.

[Nearly Sane]

Because "come from" implies that there was some prior state or mode that the universe sprang out of, and there's no reason to think that this is the case.

The problem with a lot of the phrasing of such questions is that they are logically nonsensical in terms of the way we think and express ourselves. So if the universe is the entirety of space then 'where' and 'come from' are meaningless in the sentence. This applies, perhaps even more clearly' to questions involving time and that 'why' assumes a view of cause and effect that is based on time means even its non teleological use about an concept when our idea of time breaks down is reduced to meaningless hand waving.

....And this argument could not be applied to the same questions asked about God?

Looks like you've been caught specially pleading.

See problem already discussed about definition of God here. Indeed it is part of the problem of coming up with a logically coherent definition from some people.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Is the question where did God come from pertinent?

That would depend on the definition of God, surely? Under some definitions, it could be, under others it would be nonsensical. That said, I know of no definitions that are not logically contradictory or meaningless, so until that barrier were cleared it would be the same as asking where did floghunmpoptibop come from.

I think it's pertinent since it could be answered by God is uncreated infinite and eternal.

Since the question can be answered it is a pertinent question.

Similarly the question about  where the universe came from is also pertinent since the answer could be it is infinite, eternal and uncreated.

[Nearly Sane]

And just to pick up Vlad's point on special pleading, he has, as he as a special knack, for managed to get not just the wrong end of the stick but to have ignored the stick, found a blancmange and declared this is the end of the stick I shall talk about.


The problem with phrasing questions on concepts which are not connected to base axioms applies to everything, absolutely everything, no excoetions, no special pleading. The special pleading comes in when people want to talk about things as of those axioms still apply but saying that the axioms do not apply to the thing discussed. When you come across the philosophical 'Here be dragon's you don't cross by assuming that the dragons are cats.