

Curtis. Thanks.

John R rational astounds me.  

about the Robin routine himself. Robin was associated with these idiotic 
arguments and was their champion. 

kind of frighteningly familiar:

Three of Scientology's top management personnel ambushing a former member of 
 Preview by Yahoo 



 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2014 4:56 PM

 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <punditster@...> wrote :

 On 10/20/2014 11:43 PM, jr_esq@... mailto:jr_esq@... [FairfieldLife] wrote:


 I'm flabbergasted at the statements you just said.  In the physical existence 
of human beings here on earth, everyone has to have a mother and a father.  
Were you not created by your father's sperm that impregnated your mother's egg? 
 Didn't she carry you in her womb for 9 months before you were born here on 

 I'll give you my thoughts about Barker's ideas.  But I'm taking the KCA 
argument one at a time which starts with statement 1.  Your statements are so 
astonishing that we need more clarification about your thoughts and logic.
 Everyone in the forum is invited to participate in this discussion to ask Xeno 
about his revelations regarding his physical existence.

 Everyone on this forum seems to believe in causation - that for every event 
there is a cause. The question is if everything that happens has a cause, is 
there a first cause? This is probably one of the first essay assignments in any 
Philosophy 101 class at a community college. 
 Everyone knows that Aristotle defines change and motion by first concluding 
that everything that has a beginning and an end would have to have a first 
cause or principle. His argument for before and after must have an antecedent 
state following Parmenides statement: "nothing comes from nothing." 
 Aristotle concluded that if the cosmos had a beginning it would require a 
first cause, an unmoved mover, in order to support change.
 Where is Robin when we need him?

M: Robin didn't understand the problems with unfounded assertions either, he 
was fond of making them himself. If he did he would have seen through Aquinas' 
stated presumptions instead of being so enamored with them. In our daily life 
we conflate "that's logical" with "that's true" because the former requires 
another outside verification for its veracity. Garbage in, garbage out in 
logical syllogisms. In our daily life we rarely take the trouble to be so 

The classical philosophers have two things working against them. They were 
blind to their own presumptive statements that had not been proven, and then 
were overfond of the logical conclusions they derived from them. The whole 
history of philosophy was spent cleaning up many of their confusions. 

The second problem they had in such discussions is their lack of exposure to 
the non intuitive wold physics and astro-geo-physics has revealed far beyond 
the range of our senses. A world where the rules for macro objects are 
sometimes ignored and that we are very poorly prepared to speculate about. It 
takes physicists years of deep study and advanced math to meaningfully deal 
with concepts so far from our natural experience.

Now that we know about this level of matter, universal claims like "Everything 
that comes to exist has a cause." are ridiculous as an unchallenged first 
principle. Turns out quantum events don't follow this rule that seems so 
obvious to our natural senses. But even without knowing about quantum events we 
have learned that such universals are unwise. The Greeks were much more 
confident about how their world was. We have been humbled by getting our 
intellectual asses kicked by the growth of scientific knowledge beyond the 
range of our senses.

Resorting to religious arguments using syllogisms are disingenuous for modern 
people. They trot these out to make their beliefs seem more carefully thought 
out. If they are probed from the perspective of their epistemology, these 
arguments are not really why they believe in their idea of God. They believe it 
for other reasons that they believe they can shield with the pretense of 
rationality. They want their real reasons for belief to be beyond scrutiny. I 
guarantee you that this argument is not even on he belief web John has built 
for himself so he can believe in God. It isn't even a branch on that tree.He 
thought it would be a useful stick to poke at non believers and it failed 
because he doesn't understand it himself, it just sounded authoritative. 

I think all the God beliefs base on scripture are idiotic because it requires 
someone to assume that God had a hand in writing an obviously human produced 
work of literature. That people entertain this notion today is beyond me, but 
it causes many problems in this world. I consider it a very dangerous wrong 
belief that someone has a book from God with details about our lives. (Like 
kill the infidels, or God gave us this land.)

I am most sympathetic to the mystical experience claims for the existence for 
God having had enough experiences of my own to understand how compelling they 
are. I no longer believe that the actual existence of a God is the best 
explanation for these experiences, but I could certainly be wrong and might be 
proven wrong some day.

But not today.

Reply via email to