Inspired by Tom Allens Thread -

[Robbo]

C'mon Pete, you gotta do better than that. And I know you can.

That conclusion you reach is basically just filling in the blanks, replacing an unknown with something that isn't proven at all by that previous line of reasoning.

I have five senses and can think and am therefore able to bear witness. True.
I bear witness to a universe outside of me. Agreed.
I am intelligent enough to understand the notion of causality. Indeed.
I conclude that god, creator, whatever you wanna call him is responsible for the construction of our universe... end of!!! Come again?

I conclude that someone, something, somethings or some event or events is/are responsible for the construction of our universe.
Whether or not this was by intelligent design or some random factors thrown together has yet to be proven and going by the notion God is one singular, intelligent entity, his existence can not be proven by the above reasoning. Unless you are willing to heap all those possible "creators" together under the "god banner", but then the discussion would be more along the lines of what constitutes God?

It's funny to see though how close we are in our opinions when you look at them closely. We both believe in a superpowerful force that created the Universe, but we differ in the conclusion of what this force is. Other than that, there seems to be zero difference of opinion.

Hi Jay, I'll deal with your post first because of its brevity, as for Tom's?
I'm not sure if I can respond to it but I'll explain that later.

Anyways, whenever I write something that elicits a more complicated response than what I write, I get worried; mainly because it means either I have misunderstood the problem or someone hasn't understood my position.
In your case, it cannot be you haven't understood due to a lack of intellect and so I can only assume it's because I haven't explained myself clearly enough.

You must remember here Jay, I am not stating those lines you quoted as a proof, I am stating them as the steps I took toward a conclusion; and it’s a conclusion that satisfies me.

You have zero problem in agreeing with the first three statements and yet have a problem with the final line whereby I state, ‘I conclude that god, creator, whatever you wanna call him is responsible for the construction of our universe... end of’

I am not absolutely sure where we differ here because all I am suggesting is, something created our universe, that is why I previously stated I was able to appreciate causality; and for want of a better descriptive, I am merely using the word God to identify as the causer or creator or whatever you would like to name him, her or indeed it.
My belief is quite simple here because it relies fundamentally in my belief of causality and if I am able to state Mr X as the ‘causer’ then by definition, surely he, she or indeed it, must exist ... no?

Am I missing something in your query Jay or does that clear up my position?

 

[Robbo]

Tomtimus Prime

Hmmmm,
Interesting ....... I read the first few paragraphs of your response and started to rebut your points ... one by one .. knocking down the dominoes of your argument to reveal a fleshless body of meaningless statements ..... in my opinion of course ....
But ... thankfully, I took a time-out and completed reading the remainder of your post only to see what I would no doubt have eventually written myself.
We could butt heads in this thread for a long time to come as was pointed out by yourself but I’m doubtful as to whether or not we would have gotten closer in terms of agreement or indeed, more polarised.
I tend to think it would have gone the way of the latter but that’s mainly because as posts get longer, they also tend to indulge in greater and greater detail eventually disappearing up each other’s jacksy... I’m sure you grasp my meaning here.

I think after reading your latest response, our differing opinions can be explained by introducing the notion of subjectivity; and I hate the idea of it because science is anything but subjective, it has to be objective if we are to progress both intellectually and scientifically.

But .. I have had to access this notion because if we distil my position then it basically comes down to some very simple steps ... I believe in causality, how can I not? The word is full to the brim of it; I can also see the universe around me, and to me, the next step is soo simple that it beggars belief and that is to recognise the hand of a creator/causer [God or whatever you wanna call it].
Since your position is somewhat different, and I can see you are not a stupid man, far from it, all I can conclude is, we have differing criterion in what satisfies us as reasonable.
I am aghast to ponder the idea of an intelligent man thinking any different from myself and I can only put that down to arrogance on my part ... I don’t feel as though I am because I genuinely believe what I am saying but if you can think of any other reason as to why such simple steps can be interpreted so differently then I’m all ears ... come to think of it, forget that ... it would mean another ensuing ‘War and Peace’ 
It’s been a real pleasure in crossing swords and I look forward to repeating this clash on different subjects.
I’ll think of one in the days to come and post it up in ‘The Brain Box’ forum and send you the link .... it’s been emotional !!!
Eeekk, I have just remembered I have to answer another post in that forum .. and that’s gonna be a real killer too, thankfully I have done most of the answer already 

 

[Homewrecker]

Interesting ....... I read the first few paragraphs of your response and started to rebut your points ... one by one .. knocking down the dominoes of your argument to reveal a fleshless body of meaningless statements ..... in my opinion of course ....

Ooooooo twisting the knife I see there

I imagine it would of been a much easier discussion in person, the format of the internet forum is a terrible way of discussing such subjects... its very easy to get carried away in ones own little rant. I think my points may have come across overly confrontational at times, however its hard to questions someone’s belief/opinion in detail without being so. I hope I didnt cause any offence

I think this is why most people avoid talking politics or religion on the internet.

I would like to think we wont disagree on everything - that is unless you have now started a jihad against me

 

[Buddha 3]

Hi Jay, I'll deal with your post first because of its brevity, as for Tom's?
I'm not sure if I can respond to it but I'll explain that later.

Anyways, whenever I write something that elicits a more complicated response than what I write, I get worried; mainly because it means either I have misunderstood the problem or someone hasn't understood my position.
In your case, it cannot be you haven't understood due to a lack of intellect and so I can only assume it's because I haven't explained myself clearly enough.

You must remember here Jay, I am not stating those lines you quoted as a proof, I am stating them as the steps I took toward a conclusion; and it’s a conclusion that satisfies me.

You have zero problem in agreeing with the first three statements and yet have a problem with the final line whereby I state, ‘I conclude that god, creator, whatever you wanna call him is responsible for the construction of our universe... end of’

I am not absolutely sure where we differ here because all I am suggesting is, something created our universe, that is why I previously stated I was able to appreciate causality; and for want of a better descriptive, I am merely using the word God to identify as the causer or creator or whatever you would like to name him, her or indeed it.
My belief is quite simple here because it relies fundamentally in my belief of causality and if I am able to state Mr X as the ‘causer’ then by definition, surely he, she or indeed it, must exist ... no?

Am I missing something in your query Jay or does that clear up my position?

Well that's boring... I think we find ourselves 100% in agreement then. And here I was, looking forward to a good debate.

 

[Robbo]

Well that's boring... I think we find ourselves 100% in agreement then. And here I was, looking forward to a good debate.

I think this is inevitably the fate of two minds who think alike, not due to circumstance but due to two minds having the intellectual capacity to see the truth of the matter

 

[Robbo]

Ooooooo twisting the knife I see there

I imagine it would of been a much easier discussion in person, the format of the internet forum is a terrible way of discussing such subjects... its very easy to get carried away in ones own little rant. I think my points may have come across overly confrontational at times, however its hard to questions someone’s belief/opinion in detail without being so. I hope I didnt cause any offence

I think this is why most people avoid talking politics or religion on the internet.

I would like to think we wont disagree on everything - that is unless you have now started a jihad against me

Not at all, though one thing kinda nags me about your posts ... or more accurately, potentially about you ...

It's extremely rare on these forums for somebody such as yourself [a newbie] to venture on and confront somebody who's posted over 10,000 times.

I do not mean to sound as though I'm anything special, far from it, I'm just saying that for someone like yourself to take on somebody who has obviously been around on these forums for a considerable amount of time is ... well, it's kinda unusual.

You certainly do not lack confidence nor intelligence and perhaps it's the latter that gives you the former .. let's hope so.
I suppose what I am trying to say [quite badly so far] is I'm kinda thinking you are someone else ... someone who we all know, someone who I have crossed swords with before.

I sincerely hope this isn't the case Tom, I really do because it implies an air of deceit and that was one pretty cool debate we had there and it would be spoiled I think if you were an old adversary dressed up ...
Come to think of it, I suppose there are only a few people who come to mind who you could be and apart from one thieving scumbag [he doesn't possess your intellect anyway] it wouldn't bother me too much anyway ...

Still, I tip my hat to you [whoever you are] in respect and look forward to our next conversation.
The subject of which can of course be initiated by yourself, I mean, you don't have to wait for me if you have something in mind tho I must state, my areas of historical expertise are nowhere near as developed as Jay's [Buddha 3] coz I tend to focus on books that are non-fiction and science-based with a smattering of philosophy and psychology.
Jay reads anything and everything.

 

[Homewrecker]

PM'd

 

[Robbo]

OK, I have assured myself that Tomtimus is in fact none other than .... Tomtimus unsurprisingly aka Tom .... I breathed a big sigh of relief as soon as I realised he wasn't one of the usual suspects and was exactly who he said he was ... I've never been so pleased to welcome a nobody to our forum and I use that term 'nobody' with no disrespect intended whatsoever.

For those people who are interested, it'll mean there is a possibility I get my ass handed to me a few times if I dip my toe into any thread Tom's contributing ..... I look forward to it mainly due to the fact I revel in novel experiences

Welcome aboard Tom !!

 

[Joshie15]

I said that i do beleive in God..how ever i'm quite agnostic about it all ..but i'm in the middle of reading the god dillusion, so by the time i finish my answer might be different. good book by the way i'd recomend it as he makes some good points that get you really p!ssed off with religions.

 

[Homewrecker]

I like Dawkins in his books, but I find that in person he can get overly aggressive with his points when he becomes frustrated. Understandable, but it doesnt help his cause.

I remember once seeing a brilliant debate between a high profile creationist and David Attenborough(one of my heroes).. I've tried to find it ever since