"Atheism is not saying, I do not think there is a God. It is not even saying, I do not believe there is a God. It is affirming the nonexistence of God. It affirms a negative. It affirms the nonexistence of God... anyone with an introductory course in philosophy recognizes that it is a logical contradiction. How can you affirm a negative in the absolute? It would be like me saying to you, There is no such thing as a white stone with black dots anywhere in all of the galaxies of this universe. The only way I can affirm that is if I have unlimited knowledge of this universe. So, to affirm an absolute negative is self-defeating because what you are saying is, "I have infinite knowledge in order to say to you, There is nobody with infinite knowledge." RaviMichael Fisher said ...
Why do you keep quoting stupid people, "DV"? The whole quote is inane. Why?Because EMPIRICALLY one can't prove the existence of God.
Since God, by definition, is omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent, one would have to show that God indeed has infinite knowledge, infinite presence, and infinite power by being able to point to everything in the universe .
Same thing goes as far as any effort goes to EMPIRICALLY prove the non-existence of God. The only way one can "prove" or "disprove" the existence of God is by using logic. Now what is the logical consequence of proving God's existence by using logic, "DV"?
Laughably “Michael Global System of White Supremacy Fisher” parrots the dogma of the official Plantation Religion - Scientism - by trafficking in the epistemological ignorance that all knowledge is derived exclusively through the senses.What they didn’t teach “Black Militants at Yale” was that an exclusively empirical approach to understanding relegates causality to the realm of metaphysical fantasy.
You see, though spatial proximity and temporal succession are axiomatic, causation is not. Affirmation of causal relationships is impossible. Even so-called ‘empirical proof’ is ultimately taken upon faith. What is perceived as A causing B could be merely a consequence of circumstantial juxtaposition. Empiricism or no Empiricism.
Thus, the Plantation merely exchanged one form of mysticism for another ... and Plantation Negros, who like to think of themselves as "atheists", simply exchanged one God for another and have now become the proselytizing Luciferian equivalents of Jehovah's Witnesses. But don't even know it.
22 comments:
Why do you keep quoting stupid people, "DV"?
The whole quote is inane.
Why?
Because EMPIRICALLY one can't prove the existence of God. Since God, by definition, is omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent, one would have to show that God indeed has infinite knowledge, infinite presence, and infinite power by being able to point to everything in the universe .
Same thing goes as far as any effort goes to EMPIRICALLY prove the non-existence of God.
The only way one can "prove" or "disprove" the existence of God is by using logic.
Now what is the logical consequence of proving God's existence by using logic, "DV"?
The same type of people are inclined to believe that all life on Earth was created once the "Earth cooled down" after the "Big Bang" and bacteria that was contained in the "slushy" part of an asteriod hit the planet.
Upon finding a hospitable environment on this planet this bacteria MORPHED into the complex species that we see today.
The Atheist is defined by his non-belief in God.
Put ME down as a person who doesn't believe in "B.S." theories about "Slushy Origins Of Life"
Fisher,
You're wrong by your own assumptions. In a material world NOTHING is conceived by the intellect that isn't via the interpretation of the empirical evidence ESPECIALLY things "previously" nonexistence.
If there is "no empirical evidence for God" and you conclude that "God does not exist" then you must explain how you are able articulate His existence by DEFINING His Essence? Remember, you do not have empirical evidence for God's existence and NEITHER DID THE INTELLECT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE GOD MEME.
How did he conceive of the inconceivable without benefit of empirical evidence?
Farst. Obviously you can not read. I said that neither the existence nor the non-existence of God as defined as omnipresent, omniscient, and omnipotent can be empirically proven.
"In a material world NOTHING is conceived by the intellect that isn't via the interpretation of the empirical evidence ESPECIALLY things 'previously' nonexistence."
That's just patently ridiculous.
There need be no empirical basis for defining something. For example, have you ever seen a ghost? Even if, how would you now that what you think is a ghost is indeed a ghost? Or, what are "magical powers"? Is the concept rooted in empirical evidence? If you see a door open without benefit of a human hand, does that prove that magical powers exist?
Fisher,
In the material world, NOTHING is made up.
Meaning, "nothing" is both nonexistent and YOU have to pretend it exists.
To say God can't be proven empirically is merely the concession that our "world" is more than the material. As Craig said, there is a world of uncreated energies. We know about it, but all we know is that it's unapprehendable.
Well, then what is the logical consequence of proving God's existence by using logic, "DV"?
Come on now, use that oh so brilliant noodle rattling around in your head and let us regular folks as well as your sycophants know.
I see. the "Blackest Brain On the Planet" doesn't seem to be able to give the rather simple answer this simple question.
Figures.
Fisher,
A materialist has no business using immaterial means like LOGIC to make his case. It's patently fraudulent.
[quote]Even if, how would you now that what you think is a ghost is indeed a ghost? Or, what are "magical powers"?[/quote]
Mr Fischer:
Could you detail the evolutionary process by which two different species learned how to impact another? Either as a defense mechanism or as a means to immobilize them prior to eating them.
example:
1) A poisonous snaked learned the perfect concoction by which his venom could serve as a neurotoxin to mammals which are on a different evolutionary branch than his own
2) The Forking Larkspur became a plant that is poisonous to animals such as cats
IF there was no "intelligent creator" that evaluated the eco-system that both beings resided in and provided these characteristics was is merely millions of years of random occurrences that are responsible for today's state of these creatures/plants?
"DV"
"You see, though spatial proximity and temporal succession are axiomatic,..."
(((shakin' head)))
Lawd, existent or not, please have mercy on this imbecile.
Not only have you obviously not been able to grasp the excruciatingly simple concept I asked you about, but you find it necessary to plagiarize WORD FOR WORD the nutty ramblings of Phillip D. Collins and pass them off as your own.
Farst...
"A materialist has no business using immaterial means like LOGIC to make his case. It's patently fraudulent."
Farst. From that statement alone it is obvious that you wouldn't know LOGIC from "DV" even if "DV" were to withdraw his nose and LOGIC were to plant a big wet kiss on your rectum.
Constructive Feedback...
"Could you detail the evolutionary process by..."
What does my question "Even if, how would you now that what you think is a ghost is indeed a ghost? Or, what are 'magical powers'?" have to do with these questions on evolution? However, to answer your question. No, I can not detail these evolutionary developments because I am not an evolutionary biologist. However, there is no logical argument that would forbid such a biological process. Moreover your insertion of the term "random" is incorrect. While the genetic mutations may be random, the valid evolutionary effects of such mutations are by far not random because, logically, they become evolutionarily effective only in response to the surrounding environment.
Logically, for such a process one doesn't need an "intelligent creator".
Mike,
Have you ever apprehended logic?
"DV" plagiarizing Phillip Collins...
"Affirmation of causal relationships is impossible. Even so-called ‘empirical proof’ is ultimately taken upon faith.What is perceived as A causing B could be merely a consequence of circumstantial juxtaposition."
This paragraph is an example of pure stupidity and balderdash on the level of Johnathan's purposely nonsensical creations.
What's the definition of "consequence"?
"con·se·quence (kns-kwns, -kwns)
n.
1. Something that logically or naturally follows from an action or condition. See Synonyms at effect.
2. The relation of a result to its cause."
So the "Blackest Brain On The Internet" is arguing that "Affirmation of causal relationships is impossible" by arguing that instead of "A causing B" this "could be merely a consequence of [caused by] circumstantial juxtaposition".
"DV" in plagiarizing Collins is denying causality by AFFIRMING causality.
(((shakin' head)))
"DV", you really need to stop sniffing around on Farts's rear end. The gas is killing the few brain cells you've got left.
Fisher,
Quantum theory states that the material world is in perpetual flux. And in so, represents an infinite set of potentalities only to manifest at each instant A SINGULAR configuration.
Meaning, at the quantum level or our highest understanding of the material world, causation is nonexistent.
There is only infinite potentialities and A Singular Configuration called the present.
"but you find it necessary to plagiarize WORD FOR WORD the nutty ramblings of Phillip D. Collins and pass them off as your own." MF
What? Plagarize? Bullshit! GTFOH! In the first part of this series on atheism I established the Gnostic trappings of the Enlightenment and demonstrated how atheism provides a philosophical segue for Luciferianism.
From this Luciferian vantage point, man is a self-actuating god who achieves apotheosis through a hierarchical system of biological and cognitive development.
If such a belief in a system of progressive development sounds familiar, that's because it has been promoted under numerous appellations throughout the centuries.
Nineteenth-and early twentieth-century thought teems with time-bound emergent deities. Scores of thinkers preached some sort of faith in what is potential in time, in place of the traditional Christian and mystical faith in a power outside of time.
Hegel's Weltgeist, Comte's Humanite, Spencer's organismic humanity inevitably improving itself by the laws of evolution, Nietzsche's doctrine of superhumanity, the conception of a finite God given currency by J.S. Mill, Hastings Rashdall, and William James, the vitalism of Bergson and Shaw, the emergent evolutionism of Samuel Alexander and Lloyd Morgan, the theories of divine immanence in the liberal movement in Protestant theology, and du Nouy's telefinalism--all are exhibits in evidence of the influence chiefly of evolutionary thinking, both before and after Darwin, in Western intellectual history.
The faith of progress itself--especially the idea of progress as built into the evolutionary scheme of things-is in every way the psychological equivalent of religion Mike.
^Yeah, well. More plagiarizing Collins.
Mikey...
When n this world
Will u make an assertion???
All mired n uncertainty
U mentally AWOL, brain n desertion!!!
Is this world ALL material
Or is they an immaterial version???
Does it matter if ya can't measure it
When ya utilize it just the same
Azza part of ya evidence???
Don't make no sense!!!
Only to ya cuz ya dense
Clingin' tuh radical autonomy
But tellin' us nothin'
Isn't that sumptin'???
NOT.ONE.CLEAR.CUT.ASSERTION
Dare b uttered...
'Stead dude post equivalent
Tuh technological stutter...
Dude just askin' fo' duh knife
Just like he hot butter...
Itzo pathethic
Make uh 'notha dude shutter...
Say what duh heck wrong wiff dis cat
Multiple mikey manifestations meanin' duh mutter...
Where's the straightjacket that mikey make crooked?
^Farts. Clearly you know just about as much about Quantum Mechanics as you know about logic. Namely nada.
Thordummy and Denmark Vacuous. What a pair.
Mike,
That's the most devastating rebuttal...
I'd better roll over
N cry me uh puddle
Quantum theory asserts sumthing
Care tuh venture, lazy mule
Mull it over
n y ya at it
riddle me this
is logic immaterial
or can ya give it uh kiss
can ya give it the diss
say man made logic
don't mean God exist???
[quote]No, I can not detail these evolutionary developments because I am not an evolutionary biologist.[/quote]
Fisher - I could not tell you how this CPU that I am working upon functions but I can point you to a body of reference and the humans who them that can fully articulate what I don't know.
I know of NO EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGIST who can tell us how the lumps of elements on this planet became complex chemical compounds and then assumed life.
I am still searching for someone who can articulate how genes, which are made of chemical compounds transmit life. It seems to me that only LIFE TRIGGERS LIFE.
Thus all of these intermediate discussions are for naught unless YOU who claim the mantle of SCIENCE rather than spirituality can articulate a rationally arrived at theory of how these chemical elements became animated.
[quote]
Logically, for such a process one doesn't need an "intelligent creator".[/quote]
Think about what you are arguing.
A snake as an individual has no control over its physiological make up or weapons/defenses at its disposal. If a snake in the field realizes that if he had venom to go along with his fangs - he would be a more effective killer and would be able to defend himself against the mongoose......how does this THOUGH or consciousness translate into the self-initiated transmutation - in 1 generation or 4,000 over time?
My argument is that some third party intellect who observers the interaction between these two beings (the predator and prey) has to understand the interplay of the BOTH of these two independent species and equip one with chemical compounds that are neurotoxins to the other's system.
If you find one "expert" who can articulate this process this would be greatly appreciated.
I have one question, MF, how do you know that you exist?
Post a Comment