'The Logic Behind Russel's Teapot'

But something eternal is also changeless, which is why you call it a 'cyclical' universe, and the not an eternal universe.

More so, a cyclical universe does not explain how everything got here to begin with.

 

Which definition would also preclude 'cyclic'.

 

That is your "reality" of morality. My morality is not bases upon consensus thus my "reality" of morality is that it is relative to the individual. My point is that reality is a matter or perspective when dealing with intangible concepts like morality. Even when dealing with the realm of the tangible, reality often becomes relative to the individual once one is asked to make a qualitative assessment. For example I can point at a TV and we can agree that in reality it is a TV that I am pointing at, but reality becomes relative to the individual once I ask "what is your opinion of that TV?"

At best we can have a one dimensional view of an objective tangible reality, a rock is a rock and a clock is a clock until we add the qualitative assessment in which reality becomes many shades of grey.

 

As soon as you prove your claim. You made the positive claim first, so I'll wait for you to prove your claim first.


Chop chop

 

Correlation in and of itself does not imply causation. The above to me is confirmation bias.

Logic is not an authority.

The inability to prove the negative is not proof of the positive.

 

That's how morality has always been. A group of people decided what they thought was acceptable and not.

To a point. You were influenced by your upbringing, the society you live in and the countless millions who have come before you.

but this is two seperate concepts. One is the fact it is a tv, the other is how I feel about it. Reality is objective in that it is in fact a TV, but my opinion of it is of course subjective.

Reality remains unchanged. You are simply speaking of a persons subjective opinion. Whether I like or dislike tv's doesn't change the reality that it is in fact a TV.

 

I disagree as God is the central theme of Abrahamic religion which is covered under the umbrella of theology.

 

I don't know what the above has anything to do with what I said.

No authorities exist in this case, so logic is our only route.

Hey, if you want to believe that something can come from nothing, be my guest.

- - - Updated - - -

Are you saying that the Abrahamic religions have a monopoly on God?

 

Simple: Proof is in the mind of the person analyzing. Therefore, based upon my analysis, sufficient evidence or argument compels my mind to accept the evidence and argument as true. Therefore proof has been met with regards to my mind. Now, if you don't want to accept the fact that proof has been shown/given to the satisfaction of my mind, then that is your prerogative. Whether or not you accept it is of no concern to me unless, in doing so, you attempt to change the parameters of this discussion.

 

Nope. This is the trolling game you like playing. You need to provide evidence supporting your positive claim.

Not how this works. You made a positive claim and you need to supply evidence supporting that claim. You have not supplied anything at all supporting it.

You haven't offered anything to accept or reject. You made a claim and have not provided any evidence to support it.

Chop chop

 

So now you are wanting to play the moderator game ... alright go ahead and report me for trolling.

 

I will.

Would you like to try and prove your positive claim now?

 

I already did. So it is nice to know that you will run to the moderators when you are challenged.

 

The above explains how a portion of society gets their morality not how we all come by our morality. In morality some are followers, some are leaders, but many like myself forge their morality independent of the group... thus the "reality" of morality is that it is relative to the individual rather than universal to a group... especially a large group like 320 million Americans. Know how to get 320 million Americans to universally agree upon a single issue? If so I nominate you for President and will campaign and vote for you.

Indeed and I became miserable as I was taught to obey rather that to question or otherwise think for myself. So I dug for and found my own axiom for morality and then set out to challenge everything. Some things fall within my moral code (which is not the same as me following the code of another) while other things do not thus I reject them and follow my own moral foundation through the use of my own litmus test I use to solve any moral quandary. You know who taught me this? Me and no one else. Many if not most of the "influences" you referenced I rejected as a logical basis for a moral code or otherwise a logical assessment of morality in general as society's moral code is loaded with the penalization of harmless action which is immoral by my measure of morality.

Morality is not rocket science as any with the ability to think for themselves in an objective fashion will see. I argue that those who sheepishly follow the herd are blinded by their obedience.

Is not how one feels about the TV reality? If not then what are you arguing... that it is fantasy? Are opinions reality or fantasy? I argue that my opinion that the XBOX One is a better buy over the PS4 is my subjective reality.

Reality is updated all the time by science. How does one know that a current reality will not be replaced by a new reality in the future that still may or may not be the actual reality pending any potential and yet to be discovered evidence to the contrary? How does one tell the difference between the actual reality and a perceived reality when objectively the both appear exactly the same?

I argue that we take on faith our current reality until such a time whereby new evidence introduces a new reality which may or may not be the actual reality. This freaks out the establishment oriented but I find it to be a more objective view of reality or at least our potential current illusion of reality.

 

Please link to the post since I apparently missed the evidence you provided.

I'm not challenged. You were painted into a corner and you tried to troll your way out, like you always do.

I won't stand for that.

So, please provide the evidence for,your positive claim.

 

I am certain that you did not miss it. It is the one which you responded by threatening me with the label of 'trolling'. Surely your memory is not that short. So back to the ignore list for you.

 

*yawns

The cyclical universe argues the universe has always existed and goes through a series of compressions and expansions. So I am not going to split hairs to some how allow your to justify your poor apologetics.

 

*yawns

A cyclical universe is not an eternal universe. Next.

 

And i have yet to see a single solitary religion.

But., the big bang theory has more support among scientists than any single religion has among theists

 

The Big Bang theory doesn't explain where the singularity came from.

 

And I have yet to see a single, solitary, electron, photon, quark, boson, neutron, etc...

 

Sorry, wrong. Believe and it's meaning has been followed universally among this forum and many other forums. Can you show just once when some one asked a question for example do you believe in such and such and the answer was given "I'm sorry but the word 'believe' can have two separate connotations depending on the context in which it is used" Another dishonest tactic by yourself but we all come to expect that from you.

Sorry but every definition of believe does not contain the word trust. This is a debate on The Celestial teapot and not a philosophical debate on a meaning of a word like believe which has been used so often in debates like these. If you cannot understand what someone means when they ask you if you believe in a certain god then you have no business being here.

No you didn't. You were evading the question with your dishonest little semantics game.

Wrong, no uninformed assumption. If we were to anylize and philosophize every single word we come across (even though the definition is universally accepted by everyone else) no debate would ever come to fruition.

Wrong. Take a poll. See if anyone has a different definition of the word believe when you ask them if they believe in God/gods/a god.

You are some piece of work. In fact according to all definitions of belice be it Oxford, Merriam and dictionary.com your assertions of dual context are simply not there.

I didn't stoop. I called out what I saw and provided the evidence. Keep up with the program*.

* Program has several meanings. If you are unsure of the context of "program" in this sentence please enroll at your nearest grammar school.

What rules of debate are you referring to? Are they posted here on the website. Are they rules particular to debates in cluding religion? You posted them as they were your own words. You used them for your own argument so you must agree with them regardless if they were your own words or some set of rules you read somewhere.

The question I had asked has been asked over several thousand times on this forum alone. In any of those other instances was there a need to clarify any intent for the word believe. Do you know why. Because we all know what believe means. You are dodging the question because you already know your answer proves the Celestial Teapot analogy 100% correct.

You need to go back through the forums and assign this assertion to everyone who has ever asked anyone else about their belief in anything. Snap Snap, times-a-wastin'.

Another dishonest tactic, perhaps your biggest yet. Let me demonstrate. I have just asked someone if they believe consuming cyanide is good for them. Their answer is a resounding "No!" If I were then to tell them that they did not answer the question regarding whether or not they 'believed' I would come off looking like a piece of sh!t.

The issue was was about inhaling chlorine gas and whether or not I believed that was harmful. There's no issue with the word belief here. No silly semantics game. You asked a question, I answered and for some reason you can't grasp simple answers.

The data I provided or do you have some other data in mind? Please elaborate.

I didn't. You asked if I believe if inhaling chlorine gas is good for you and I stated "It is not good for you" . If you are getting bent out of shape because my answer did not contain the words "I believe" then you have real issues. Can you imagine if people acted like that in real life.

Person A says to person B "Do you believe cigarette smoking is harmful?
Person B simply says "Yes"
Person A responds with "You evaded the question on whether or not you believe smoking is harmful."

I know. It's freaking ridiculous.

 

Well, if you don't want to believe what I say and/or what the dictionary says, then it is your prerogative MOD EDIT - Rule 3

 

Not sure if it's been addressed but for the most important part of this is ....should the teapot be warmed before you put the tea in? It's always troubled me. And since teabags seem to be everywhere now I doubt if my troubled mind is going to be relieved any time soon.

Okay, I jest. The really important part of Russell's point is the second bit.

 

So you can't link me to it?

MOD EDIT - Rule 3