Aetherous

I already debunked this false premise.

Disagreements are temporary, and without the cold we wouldn't know how nice hot cocoa can be.

What about infinite regression of cause and effect (no possible beginning to dependent origination)? That's eternalism.

There's the full quote of mine. It's answering your question, not avoiding it. It's not giving one of two provided answers, but giving room to more options or even simply saying "both at the same time". Which reminds me of this passage... We really don't need to keep asking the same questions once they're answered.

Notice that I didn't give either answer...

Already answered this. Please don't keep asking the same thing after it's already been covered...that's trolling behavior. My answer is there for you to ponder.

You didn't understand what I said apparently...and it wasn't debunked.

I answered you in saying basically both. I didn't refuse to give an answer.

No, for something to be true it's not required that anyone accepts its truth. It is true regardless and is shown through reasoning. To believe otherwise is at least one other fallacy, probably argument ad verecundiam (appeal to inappropriate authority). A sound argument stands on its own, and people can either accept it or live in denial. There has not yet been a single legitimate debunking in this thread.

Actually, the error of the Atheists in the video is argumentum ad ignorantiam. Why? "It is fallacious to argue that some proposition is true simply because it has not been proven false. It is equally fallacious to argue that some proposition is false simply because it has not been proved true." - Introduction to Logic, by Copi and Cohen 12th ed. Also, to relate this back to the topic of this thread...if someone claimed that the Creator exists, and that it's true because it can't be proven false...that would be this fallacy. If someone claims the Creator doesn't exist, and this is true because no one can provide evidence for it...that's also this fallacy. edit... Also, "possible" does not equal "true".

Go back to my single die example to see the error in this reasoning. Also, give me a bag, and we redo the experiment. Is it possible now, or still impossible?

True. If you say, "I have two dice. Is it possible to roll an 18 of three dice with these two dice?" of course it's impossible. We didn't see how many dice were in the bag, though...so it was absolutely possible at the time of not knowing.

Give me the bag, we do the experiment a second time, and then it becomes possible again. If we were to say, "it's not possible to roll an 18 with 3 dice from this bag" and then it happens after I've messed with the bag and made sure there were 3 dice, we would have been absolutely wrong to say "it's not possible". It was clearly possible because it happened. Therefore, it is always possible until it doesn't happen...and then it's no longer possible. Pretty simple. Another example to drive the point home. We could take one die and ask, "is it possible to roll a 4"? I say it is, but RongzomFan says it's not correct to say "it's possible". But then we roll a 4...so we see of course it was possible. It happened. Lets ask of the dice the was rolled as a 4. "Is it possible that this die was rolled as a 6?" No. It was rolled as a 4. It's no longer possible for it to have been rolled as anything else. We can ask, "Could it have been possible for the die to have rolled as a 6 instead of a 4, prior to the roll?" Yes, it was possible. Hopefully the error in the video is understood now.

I also asked you to provide one link that sums it up (not google of course which I already checked and didn't get far), or else sum it up yourself here...then we can see if it was actually debunked or not. I doubt that it was actually based on sound reasoning.

Wow that's enormous! Oh wait...I didn't see the benches, and only thought I saw windmills.

It's not meaningless if you understand the definition of "possible". Possible isn't merely defined as "likely"...it means "might be so". Also, you haven't addressed the likelihood of a Creator at all (in terms of providing reasoning). We could say that it's possible but not likely...but based on what? How we feel? Or can we use logic to show how a Creator is unlikely, somehow? Remember, this thread is "debunking a Creator". Apparently you can't, and I was correct all along that Agnosticism is closer to the truth.

There's a great possibility that there isn't...but it's also possible that there is. For instance, maybe someone in some kind of spaceship orbiting Mars has one there. Also, to make a claim, you should provide evidence...otherwise it's meaningless. To relate it back to this discussion...to claim that there is a God, one would need to provide evidence. To claim that there isn't a God (what this thread is supposed to be doing) one would need to provide evidence. Absolute truth found through reasoning can be provided as evidence. On the other hand, to claim the possibility of there being a God means there isn't enough evidence to provide, but that it's plausible. If it's not plausible, then one would need to provide sound reasoning for why it isn't. Then it would literally be impossible. If something is not impossible, then it's always possible. Also, if you wanted to make an argument regarding likelihood, it would have to be logically sound and not just based on personal opinion or emotion.

No, one doesn't have to according to real logic.

You don't see where I showed my understanding of it, and then destroyed their false argument? It's back there in the post. Check it out!

Ah, I see you didn't understand my post.

Simple Jack, Yes, I suppose you could say that is biased. But I prefer to think of myself as being open minded and able to consider multiple points of view, or traditions, at once. Unless something is shown to be absolutely true, I don't believe 100% in it. RongzomFan, Do you have the capacity to respond to my last post for you? By the way, reported for insulting the intelligence of other members without any reasoning behind it. I realize this is a common Buddhist turn of phrase, but that doesn't make it less insulting (and untrue).

Yep, that definitely would be good.

The Mayo Clinic Guide to Stress-Free Living deals with attention (concentration) training. The old version of the book listed tons of studies dealing with the brain...I'm not sure about this one.

Probably the best thing out there in terms of a neigong practice.

No I'm not. I'm studying Buddhism right now. lol