What if you Find a Watch in the Sand?

[LostMarbels]

The more I read our conversation, the more I realize this isn't even a discussion yet alone a debate. You just saying no to everything, with one quick sentence comprised of conjecture and no real meaning.

I stated:

Anyone reading this please. Where did weak force, strong force, electromagnetism, and gravity come form?

You responded:

where did God's nature come from? It sounds like these questions carry the assumption that everything must come from somewhere, but conveniently excuse God from that requirement.

The reason you responded to me thusly is to point out a supposed falsehood in my question, and to muddle the meaning of my question in order to render it unanswerable. In the world of addictions counseling, in which I work we call this "Fogging".

Let me explain it's mechanics:

By posing a question as you did, If I answer your question about God, my question concerning the origin of the four force I had stated, falls to the way side, and becomes moot. Because I now have to address your issue.

If I disregard your question about God, and continue to address the question as I posed, you can then turn right around and state that I can't even answer your question.

So what this is, is a defensive tactic in order to hijack the question and render it unanswerable without ever even addressing the original question.

Case in point, the original question posed was never answered.

Lets look at the second part of your statement:

"It sounds like these questions carry the assumption that everything must come from somewhere, but conveniently excuse God from that requirement"

But in truth, the original statement does not even bring God into account: "Anyone reading this please. Where did weak force, strong force, electromagnetism, and gravity come form? Before you give me the usual song and dance, please take some time to answer my questions."

Your assumption is also a defense mechanism we call projection. To automatically, and without provocation, ascribe a creationistic view to the question posed, denotes a deepest, and rooted opposition to creationism on your part. So you are automatically set against anything resembling creationism. Hard to talk to someone on auto attack. Even harder to reason with.
Now back to this, and break it down

All existence came from somewhere, including God, but where?

We don't know where anything came form, yet it's here, and we recognize them as fact due to empirical proof.

As far as the laws of physics go, I believe it is fair to say that we can not see, touch, smell, taste or define any of the forces themselves.

We can only observe the traits of these force and explain by definition how the act/react.

So where is the contradiction in what I stated? What parts of my statement are direct opposition between things compared, inconstant, or denies one another?

See? It's not a contradiction. It's another tactic. But anyhoowts.

Then there's this:

So, I am not objecting so much to the idea that a God could be a "somewhere" where everything we know exists came from as I object to the absolute requirement that "everything comes from somewhere". What we can know logically is that requirement can't apply to everything.

What dose this even mean? I swear it sounds like something Bush would say.


The problem with absolutes is that anything definitive is an absolute. So to say something can not apply is an absolute. sorry.

Here are your responses:

I'm not certain that it makes sense to speak of "gravity itself", since it is more of a relationship than an entity unto itself.

I'm not so certain about that. It does fly in the face of "common sense", but not logic as such.

Go for it!

I omitted those questions because I would just be repeating myself, but sure.

Gravity was not "put into place" in any meaningful way.

No, since it is not an intelligent process.

They don't "know" anything. They simply act as they do because of what they are and how they interact. If you drop a pencil by accident, it doesn't "know" to drop to the floor, it simply falls down a gravity well.

You could put it that way.

Not one, answer any single question posed. They are all only statements of opinion, retorts, and more fog.

 

[Eudaimonist]

I'm not trying to introduce "fog" into our discussion -- everything I have told you has a precise meaning -- but rather I'm trying to get across a different paradigmatic way of thinking. I appear to have been unsuccessful in getting that paradigm across to you, but not due to any lack of sincerity in trying.

You complain that I'm not answering your questions, but I can't answer questions that can't logically be answered, and I have tried to explain the logical contradiction that prevents me from doing so. If you focus on understanding why I think that certain questions are ultimately unanswerable, we'd get further in the discussion.

I don't think it would be helpful to drown you in text, which is why I'm trying to be brief and concise and to the point. If you don't understand something I have said, you can tell me what you want explained, and I can get into more detail.

If you don't appreciate my conversation style, we don't have to have this discussion. And posting that pic of Bush was very rude and immature, and you owe me an apology if you'd like to make another attempt to continue the conversation.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[SparedParts]

Right, I agree with you Sunrise... That is just the beauty of the Lord, which some will never understand. Sad truth is they would say "Oooh a watch that I don't have to pay for" lol, not even "I wonder if the owner is around?"

 

[lupusFati]

So you look around you and see the complexity that surrounds us and don't think that it could have happened on its own, but a being so complex as to have magically created the complexity that surrounds you just popping into existence on his/her own offers no problems? Consistency, much?

I think the actual argument is that such a being is so complex and 'magical' as you put it, that the being exists on it's own with no discernible origin.

To put this in Homestuck terms:

HE IS ALREADY HERE.

Silliness aside, that's how I've always viewed the argument, both on the for and against sides.
I am on the fence as to whether or not I actually believe in a deity of any kind anymore. But that's my problem, not yours.

 

[LostMarbels]

I'm not trying to introduce "fog" into our discussion -- everything I have told you has a precise meaning -- but rather I'm trying to get across a different paradigmatic way of thinking. I appear to have been unsuccessful in getting that paradigm across to you, but not due to any lack of sincerity in trying.

You complain that I'm not answering your questions, but I can't answer questions that can't logically be answered, and I have tried to explain the logical contradiction that prevents me from doing so. If you focus on understanding why I think that certain questions are ultimately unanswerable, we'd get further in the discussion.

I don't think it would be helpful to drown you in text, which is why I'm trying to be brief and concise and to the point. If you don't understand something I have said, you can tell me what you want explained, and I can get into more detail.

If you don't appreciate my conversation style, we don't have to have this discussion. And posting that pic of Bush was very rude and immature, and you owe me an apology if you'd like to make another attempt to continue the conversation.


eudaimonia,

Mark

I deleted that part of the post. I meant it as a joke, maybe a little ribbing. Did not mean to cause offence. I do apologize. I still have no Idea what you meant. That was what I was trying to convey. I thought it was a silly statement and would be a funny joke. I don't find it offensive when some one jokingly points out a flaw, however, I don't know you well enough to joke like that.

So........ what is this? Gays are out of the closet, and atheist aren't?