Ayn Rand's Utopia

On Fri, 10 Jul 2015 09:33:15 -0600, Chris L Peterson
wrote this crap:

On Fri, 10 Jul 2015 11:03:40 -0400, Lord Vath
wrote:

I don't assume that the Universe always existed, nor do I assume it
came into being. Either is possible, and it is also possible that
neither describes reality.

That's entirely possible but a weak argument. The universe exists
therefore it must have come into being.

You can continue to make that assertion, but it remains unsupportable
(or at the least, you have failed to offer any support).

I took logic in college, it was a required course. The premise is
that the universe exists. Therefore it follows that it was created.
Almost all scientists agree on that.

Then your college professor must be rolling in his grave. "Therefore
it follows that it was created" is an arbitrary assertion, not a
logical conclusion. It is, in fact, itself a premise. And not one that
I agree with, and not one that I think most scientists would agree
with.

The premise that the Universe exists is easily accepted.

That's correct.

The premise
that this implies creation is not.

You cannot prove that the universe was not created and I won't expect
that. But most scientists believe that the universe was created and
so do most of the population. Your opinion is in the thin minority
and is quite illogical.

Your assertion that "most scientists" believe the Universe was created
in unsupported. I believe that if you were to query cosmologists,
you'd find that their opinions on that matter are much more complex
than you suggest. For instance, even if the Universe had a beginning,
that does not imply that it was created, and it does not imply that
that beginning had a cause.

You have a thin argument. The universe exists. There can be no doubt
about it. It must have been created, therefore there must be a
creator. Any other possible opinion is folly.

I've once again shown you to be a fool.



This signature is now the ultimate
power in the universe

On Fri, 10 Jul 2015 12:07:43 -0400, Lord Vath
wrote:

You have a thin argument. The universe exists. There can be no doubt
about it.

In fact, there can certainly be doubt about that. There are schools of
philosophy that address precisely this sort of assertion. That said,
we can accept the premise because if we do not, there's little point
in any further analysis. Nevertheless, the premise remains axiomatic.

It must have been created, therefore there must be a
creator.

Again, your assertions remain unsupported. You have not defined
"create" in this context. You have not justified why the process of
coming into existence (taking that as one definition) requires either
a "creator" (also undefined) or even a cause. Particles come into
being without a creator. They decay without a cause.

On Friday, July 10, 2015 at 7:46:57 AM UTC-7, Lord Vath wrote:

Perhaps God has always existed since the beginning of time?

Perhaps the universe has existed since the beginning of time?

On Friday, 10 July 2015 19:01:42 UTC+2, palsing wrote:

Perhaps the universe has existed since the beginning of time?

TIME is the problem. NOT existence. NOR creation. Remove time and creation has no meaning. Nor has light a fixed velocity. Time travel and FTL travel become the norm. Birth, sickness and death cease to have meaning. [And may soon anyway.] Ask your first AI not if there is a god. But ask, rather, what is time?

Perhaps time is a concept reserved only for backward natives only 1/2 a step removed from the surviving tree dwellers? i.e. Those who still crawl on their knees and believe in infantile concepts like religion, Santa Claus, creation and time.

Belief in any god is so parochial. So yesterday. It has no future because it lives only in the past. Nobody can come along now and rewrite one jot of it. In the last few thousand years there has been a parochial belief in a multiplicity of gods. By default, the belief in any one god demands that all others cannot exist. My god automatically excludes yours since both cannot be responsible for creation. One would have to allow for the thousands of lesser gods [than mine] and give them inferior rolls. Which is plainly as daft as believing in any of them.

Which god did the dinosaurs believe in before their sky fell? Do dolphins or whales believe in gods? Do ultra-advanced, ancient aliens who benignly rule a galaxy still have gods? Or did they finally wear away from personal prayer abuse? When humanity is wiped out who will pray to Whom? And Whom shall answer that non-existent prayer if Nobody is listening? Will the last god to leave please turn the lights out, put the toilet seat down and drop the latch? Thank You!

On Thu, 09 Jul 2015 16:14:44 -0600, Chris L Peterson
wrote:
I'm not suggesting religion hasn't or can't inspire art. That
doesn't
make religion a good thing.

Do you think that there is good art which has been inspired by
religion? If so, don't you think that's a good think with religion
that it can inspire good art?

Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jul 2015 12:55:19 +0000 (UTC), Mike Collins
wrote:

I don't believe in God. I'm not an atheist I'm an agnostic. I do however
think it's vanishingly unlikely that anyone will prove the existence of a
God.

That means you are an atheist. Own the label.

We have argued this before. Look up the definition of agnostic in the
dictionary. You are wrong.

On Fri, 10 Jul 2015 20:15:51 +0200, Paul Schlyter
wrote:

On Thu, 09 Jul 2015 16:14:44 -0600, Chris L Peterson
wrote:
I'm not suggesting religion hasn't or can't inspire art. That
doesn't
make religion a good thing.

Do you think that there is good art which has been inspired by
religion? If so, don't you think that's a good think with religion
that it can inspire good art?

Of course good art has been inspired by religion. But no, I don't
think that makes religion good. I'd say that not every aspect of
religion is bad, of course. But in sum, it is certainly bad.

We don't need religion to inspire art. Or anything else (except
racism, sexism, hatred, and those things that it historically
inspires).

On Fri, 10 Jul 2015 18:19:19 +0000 (UTC), Mike Collins
wrote:

Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jul 2015 12:55:19 +0000 (UTC), Mike Collins
wrote:

I don't believe in God. I'm not an atheist I'm an agnostic. I do however
think it's vanishingly unlikely that anyone will prove the existence of a
God.

That means you are an atheist. Own the label.

We have argued this before. Look up the definition of agnostic in the
dictionary. You are wrong.

No. However you want to define agnostic, you are still an atheist if
you don't believe in God.

Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jul 2015 18:19:19 +0000 (UTC), Mike Collins
wrote:

Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jul 2015 12:55:19 +0000 (UTC), Mike Collins
wrote:

I don't believe in God. I'm not an atheist I'm an agnostic. I do however
think it's vanishingly unlikely that anyone will prove the existence of a
God.

That means you are an atheist. Own the label.

We have argued this before. Look up the definition of agnostic in the
dictionary. You are wrong.

No. However you want to define agnostic, you are still an atheist if
you don't believe in God.


Oxford Dictionary

Definition of agnostic in English:
noun

A person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the
existence or nature of God.
EXAMPLE SENTENCES

Dictionary,com

noun
1.
a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and
the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human
knowledge is limited to experience.
Synonyms: disbeliever, nonbeliever, unbeliever; doubter, skeptic,
secularist, empiricist; heathen, heretic, infidel, pagan.


Merriam - Webster
1 agnostic
noun ag·nos·tic \ag-ˈnäs-tik, əg-\
: a person who does not have a definite belief about whether God exists or
not

: a person who does not believe or is unsure of something

On Friday, July 10, 2015 at 10:49:07 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jul 2015 05:14:19 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:

Atheists don't generally provide much in the way of community or rec facilities since they don't organize themselves into congregations the way Christians do.

Your comment makes no sense. It's like arguing that people who don't
believe in Santa Claus don't provide community facilities.

Santa Claus is secular, not religious. Do you not know the difference?

Whoosh!

That went right over your head, peterson.