Have you tried reading the NT in the correct order?

[Shaker]

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

And that's not special pleading?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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

And that's not special pleading?

No because I state in another subsequent post that the universe could be uncreated ,infinite and eternal.

I'm surprised Nearly Sane hasn't picked up on your error......bias Nearly?

[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.

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.

What does uncreated mean outside of assumed idea of creation and cause and effect. What does any form of existence mean outside of time. What does infinite mean when not related to dimensions. Just putting words next to one and other does not create a logically coherent definition. The verbal leakage you just provided even in its wildest dreams would not manage to get the accolade of 'not even wrong'.

[Nearly Sane]

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

And that's not special pleading?

No because I state in another subsequent post that the universe could be uncreated ,infinite and eternal.

I'm surprised Nearly Sane hasn't picked up on your error......bias Nearly?

Since I hadn't read it, no.

[Shaker]

No because I state in another subsequent post that the universe could be uncreated ,infinite and eternal.

Might be, might not be. I really have absolutely no idea and don't know of anyone else who does either.

The difference with those who think that Goddunnit is that they tend to be rather more assertive and a good deal more rigid about their belief, especially when it comes to others sharing the conclusions that they believe follow from that belief.

Physicists and cosmologists treat these matters as fascinating conundrums, in many (in fact, most) cases still awaiting experimental verification if, and that's a big if, technology ever progresses that far, to be pondered and hotly debated and enjoyed at conferences and meetings hopefully with some good food and a nice bar thrown in.

Those who are convinced beyond all persuasion and argumentation that a god created the universe and has laid down a plan for humanity to follow are significantly, indeed statistically more likely to think that a difference in opinion is worth decapitation.

[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.

What does uncreated mean outside of assumed idea of creation and cause and effect. What does any form of existence mean outside of time. What does infinite mean when not related to dimensions. Just putting words next to one and other does not create a logically coherent definition. The verbal leakage you just provided even in its wildest dreams would not manage to get the accolade of 'not even wrong'.

For me Sane you are demonstrating that descriptions break down at the start of the universe as described in the questions antitheists want suppressed... And not only descriptions but philosophical materialism as well.

So Krauss' behaviour and statements should therefore be rightly assessed as attempts to preserve the dogma of philosophical naturalism by the suppression of difficult questions.

[Shaker]

For me Sane you are demonstrating that descriptions break down at the start of the universe as described in the questions antitheists want suppressed

Bullshit alert! I thought you'd just agreed that "anti-theists" didn't want any questions suppressed?

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

Oh, so you did. Time to make up what you think is your mind, old fruit.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No because I state in another subsequent post that the universe could be uncreated ,infinite and eternal.

Might be, might not be. I really have absolutely no idea and don't know of anyone else who does either.

The difference with those who think that Goddunnit

But this isn't about them. This is about antitheists doing their uttermost to protect philosophical naturalism by the wrong means.
There are loads of atheists who think that proposing that these big questions shouldn't be asked is wrong.

[Shaker]

But this isn't about them. This is about antitheists doing their uttermost to protect philosophical naturalism by the wrong means.
There are loads of atheists who think that proposing that these big questions shouldn't be asked is wrong.

Neither do the "anti-theists" who make you wet the bed every night. You just think they do. They don't, but that's because you don't understand what they actually say, substituting for their stated thoughts your own thoughts as to what you think and want them to have said.

[Nearly Sane]

But essentially what Krauss is saying is that those concepts break down which is why any set of questions beyond those based on axiomatic assumptions break down, and when you cannot use those assumptions there is nothing to be said.

He is again doing the opposite of what you claim.and saying the questions make no sense for everything.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

But essentially what Krauss is saying is that those concepts break down which is why any set of questions beyond those based on axiomatic assumptions break down, and when you cannot use those assumptions there is nothing to be said.

He is again doing the opposite of what you claim.and saying the questions make no sense for everything.

And yet he attacks religion on philosophically naturalistic grounds.
If the conclusion of the book is as you say it is ''The impertinence of the question'' then that is surely a devasting one for philosophical naturalism.

But surely he claims a universe has come from nothing as confidently announced in at least the title suggests and ends with the impertinence of the question as the conclusion.

Sounds like a bit of a fail to me with Philosophical Materialism exactly in the position of asking for a miracle and wanting to explain the rest.

[Shaker]

And yet he attacks religion on philosophically naturalistic grounds.

...must ... stay ... awake ...

If the conclusion of the book is as you say it is ''The impertinence of the question''

No, that's what you said it is, not NS.

Still waiting for your substantiation of the claim that Russell and Dawkins "definitely" (your word) claimed that asking questions about the origins of the universe is impertinent, by the way.

[Nearly Sane]

I haven't said anything about impertinence, indeed I pointed out earlier that I don't think it applies as a term here generally.

As for Krauss's nothing, it is used in the specific physics use. It is incorrect for theists and atheists alike to use the term as if it is  the wider sense. Indeed there is a philosophical problem with the term nothing if you expand it too far. I am not sure we can sensibly talk about nothing in any sense not related to a concept of not being something.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

And yet he attacks religion on philosophically naturalistic grounds.

...must ... stay ... awake ...

Shaker sees the line containing ''devastating consequences or philosophical naturalism'' and closes his eyes.

[Shaker]

It's the philosophical naturalism bit that always gets me nodding off.

After the first 20,000 times it loses a certain something, you know.

[Spud]

I died last week and came back to life, and it was witnessed by 2,000 people.

Unless you have the testimony of the 2,000 people it is meaningless.

Fair point... so lets say that a small percentage of the population is able to write. So if 5000 people were saved on the day of Pentecost and out of that 5000, 2000 had witnessed a previous miracle and out of those 2000 only 100 were able to write... realistically we would expect a handful of accounts to be selected as the 'canon' of the Church. Again, if those miracles did not happen we would expect to have documentary evidence discreditting the New Testament.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I haven't said anything about impertinence, indeed I pointed out earlier that I don't think it applies as a term here generally.

As for Krauss's nothing, it is used in the specific physics use. It is incorrect for theists and atheists alike to use the term as if it is  the wider sense. Indeed there is a philosophical problem with the term nothing if you expand it too far. I am not sure we can sensibly talk about nothing in any sense not related to a concept of not being something.

I realise that since I have previously said that a physicists nothing is really an ''unstable something''.
Are you saying that ''nothing'' in any sense is ''something?''

It seems that there are startling consequences for philosophical naturalism here and you are pussy footing around them.

 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It's the philosophical naturalism bit that always gets me nodding off.

After the first 20,000 times it loses a certain something, you know.

Don't worry, I think NearlySane is in the process of skewering it or may have done so and surrounded his demolition in so much convolution in the hope that we haven't noticed.

[Shaker]

As we've been shown again today on this very thread, what you think and what is actually the case are usually always at very great variance indeed.

Any movement on those Russell and Dawkins quotes yet?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

As we've been shown again today on this very thread, what you think and what is actually the case are usually always at very great variance indeed.

Any movement on those Russell and Dawkins quotes yet?

The only movement I've experienced today Shaker is the normal clenching feeling in the arse one gets when they read your posts.

[Shaker]

Since you were the one supposed to be leaving, that counts as a self-inflicted injury.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Since you were the one supposed to be leaving, that counts as a self-inflicted injury.

Yes, yes ,yes
Russell famously said in a BBC interview that the ''universe is just there and that's all their is to it''...... apparently it's also in this work.

 {5}Bertrand Russell and F. C. Copleston, "The Existence of God," in The Existence of God, ed. with an Introduction by John Hick, Problems of Philosophy Series (New York: Macmillan, 1964), p. 175.

[Nearly Sane]

As often written before I am not a PNist (and yes, before anyone says anything the homophones are deliberate), so I am not pussy footing around anything. I think it like the logical realists it falls to the Godel problem and, specifically to the Wittgenstein challenge on language.

The problem with that though your position too is effortlessly skewered by that and what you end up with is having seen through your branch, down on the dead ground with me. That's OK if you want to be a relativist but it leaves you nowhere.

[Shaker]

Since you were the one supposed to be leaving, that counts as a self-inflicted injury.

Yes, yes ,yes
Russell famously said in a BBC interview that the ''universe is just there and that's all their is to it''...... apparently it's also in this work.

 {5}Bertrand Russell and F. C. Copleston, "The Existence of God," in The Existence of God, ed. with an Introduction by John Hick, Problems of Philosophy Series (New York: Macmillan, 1964), p. 175.

Why apparently? Having made the claim shouldn't you know?

I notice that the words you attribute to Russell nowhere feature the word 'impertinent.'

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Since you were the one supposed to be leaving, that counts as a self-inflicted injury.

Yes, yes ,yes
Russell famously said in a BBC interview that the ''universe is just there and that's all their is to it''...... apparently it's also in this work.

 {5}Bertrand Russell and F. C. Copleston, "The Existence of God," in The Existence of God, ed. with an Introduction by John Hick, Problems of Philosophy Series (New York: Macmillan, 1964), p. 175.

Why apparently? Having made the claim shouldn't you know?

I notice that the words you attribute to Russell nowhere feature the word 'impertinent.'

Alas and alack IT IS in that book since it is a transcript of the BBC interview carried out by Copleston.

Of course if Russell is stating that any questions on the origin of the universe are not pertinent....they maybe impertinent.