This dousche equates me with JP on his blog and erases my comment disputing it.
I am not the same as JP because
1) I accept modern science evolution and and the big bang without a problem. JP does not.
2) I don't promote Intelligent Design. JP does.
3) My views on politics and society are that of a mainstream conservative Republican. JP I can't speak for. JP said on his blog that he voted for Obama.
Next, I am going to criticize Larry's post where this all occurred. For the record, I only call Larry a dousche for making the post equating me with JP and not letting me answer. I do not call Larry a dousche for anything else he wrote.
Larry wrote a post bashing metaphysics. I asked him if he understood the cosmological argument. Larry might be a man of science, but when it comes to metaphysics, it would seem that Larry can use a class on it before he bashes the Cosmological Argument. Larry can repeat and satirize but he's not understanding it.
Now how the Cosmological Argument handles the issue of infinite regress is easy. An infinite chain of events is not possible due to the lack of a first cause. So in order for anything to be possible, there has to be an uncaused cause, and this we call God.
5 comments:
You need to work on your people skills. You went to *his* blog and started to demand that he define this, define that...all the while never making your case while accussing him of not knowing a particular subject.
SJ, you were out of line. Next time, state your debate clearly from the start, don't demand, and don't accuse.
Of the two, he wasn't the douche.
LOL Cora you're entitled to your opinion.
And I did catch Larry not fully understanding the subject matter that he is ridiculing with his "And as a teaser: Is that really the question you want to ask, the cosmological argument "tackling" the issue of infinite regress? Really?"
In any case if Larry taks down his post equating me to JP then I will take down this thread.
If that makes me a dousche so be it. XD
The cosmological argument doesn't solve the problem of infinite regress. That's why I asked the question.
The CA just pushes the regress problem down the line by invoking God without explaining what causes God. If God is uncaused, then why can't the universe be uncaused? If God is super mysterious and inscrutable, then you really have no explanation at all.
The idea of causing in CA arguments is puzzling to me. We know that throwing a ball off a ledge will cause the ball to fall to the ground, but what causes a universe? That's what science is trying to figure out! So, I don't think we have a very good notion of cause as it applies to the universe itself.
I will not take down my comment equating you (somewhat) with JP. It's my opinion, and I think it still holds true. I don't mind being called a douchebag (note the spelling). I'm 40 years old and not ruffled by name-calling from some dude on the interwebz. I don't know why you are. I will, however, apologize if the remark caused you offense. I hereby apologize and will try not to let my snarky side get the better of me again.
"Now how the Cosmological Argument handles the issue of infinite regress is easy. An infinite chain of events is not possible due to the lack of a first cause. So in order for anything to be possible, there has to be an uncaused cause, and this we call God."
Wow! That statement is so mind-numbingly stupid, I am not sure how to begin to respond. I will say that your assertion that there MUST be a first cause is a baseless assumption. If EVERYTHING requires a cause then an infinite regression necessarily follows. Even if you postulate an "uncaused cause," to call said initial cause "God" is baseless labeling. The "Cosmological Argument" is better called the Circular Argument because it is an exercise in circular reasoning.
For the record SJ, I do NOT think you are innately stupid. I just think that you have been intellectually disadvantaged by your yeshivish education, so much so that you would consider a total non sequitur such as the "first cause" argument a convincing argument at all. And since I compared you with Shalmo, allow me to better explain. I do not know much about Shalmo's upbringing so please correct me if I am wrong, but I imagine that, like you and OTD, he was raised frum and went to similar schools. I suspect that his embrace of Islam is a result of his upbringing. For some reason he rejected Judaism but chose Islam to fill the spiritual void, swapping the bloodthirsty Semitic deity of the Old Testament and Talmud for the bloodthirsty Semitic deity of the Koran. Perhaps you are filling your spiritual hole with Evangelical (sorry "non-denominational" whatever that means) Christianity? It seems that it was not Fox News that brainwashed you after all, but your yeshivish education, which left you intellectually and spiritually impoverished!
As for comparing you with JP, I agree that it is a very unfair comparison, though oddly enough you missed some more key differences between him and you. For starters, JP is a borderline retard, a habitual liar, a pathological narcissist, a radical bigot, a would-be terrorist, possibly schizophrenic (or at least he displays schizoid tendencies), and functionally retarded. To my knowledge, none of the above applies to you. Case in point, your (futile) attempts to tame or "humanize" JP notwithstanding, I recall when he got his panties up in a bunch because you used the term "Old Testament." Granted, like JP you do engage in personal abuse, but yours is far milder. That said, you did call Larry Tanner a douchebag, but if you are going to insult people, next time please learn to spell.
And since you mention political differences through the horribly myopic lens of American 2-party politics (an obsession of yours), note that you call yourself a "mainstream conservative/Republican." As for JP on the other hand, he is ultra-right, comparable to a neo-Nazi, Islamic Fundamentalist, skin head, or klansman. He is closer to Osama bin Laden, Fred Phelps, James von Brunn, or any of the idiots on Stormfront than most conservative-Republicans. You note his claim to have voted for Obama, but there are only two likely possibilities:
(1) Jakkkob Stein is lying because he is a racist piece of shit who believes that African-Americans are generally anti-Semites in the mold of Nation of Islam and who takes the Talmudic hypothesis for the origin of Black Africans (cursed sons of Ham) seriously, but should someone point out what a racist piece of shit he is, JP can deflect criticism by claiming (falsely) to have voted for Obama.
(2) He really did vote for Obama but on the sole criterion that Neturei Karta tacitly endorsed him and Jakkkob Stein votes for whomever Neturei Karta tells him to vote for.
Post a Comment