(April 16, 2016 at 12:28 pm)FebruaryOfReason Wrote:

(April 16, 2016 at 11:35 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote: I think that you are either misunderstanding or misrepresenting what Chad is trying to say.  In any case however, why are you using philosophy here, rather than science to make your point?

I was asking him to prove something, anything, rather than just asserting something. Why is he so reluctant to tell us something about God that we can check? Just one thing?

Like Brian says, why not just cut to the chase?

Get in the lab. Why is the lab not an appropriate intellectual tool to investigate religion?

It depends on what the claim is.   His point, is that the lab is not the correct category to answer all questions.  There is truth outside of science.  Science assumes things that it cannot demonstrate.  Also science doesn't prove anything, that is for math and logic

(April 16, 2016 at 12:52 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote:

(April 16, 2016 at 12:28 pm)FebruaryOfReason Wrote: I was asking him to prove something, anything, rather than just asserting something. Why is he so reluctant to tell us something about God that we can check? Just one thing?

Like Brian says, why not just cut to the chase?

Get in the lab. Why is the lab not an appropriate intellectual tool to investigate religion?

It depends on what the claim is.   His point, is that the lab is not the correct category to answer all questions.  There is truth outside of science.  Science assumes things that it cannot demonstrate.  Also science doesn't prove anything, that is for math and logic

You are quite right. Science is a tool for disproving things.

That's why a lot of people don't like to expose their assertions to it.

(April 16, 2016 at 1:04 pm)FebruaryOfReason Wrote: You are quite right. Science is a tool for disproving things.

But the goal is rather to prove things. Not to disprove.

(April 16, 2016 at 1:04 pm)FebruaryOfReason Wrote:

(April 16, 2016 at 12:52 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: It depends on what the claim is.   His point, is that the lab is not the correct category to answer all questions.  There is truth outside of science.  Science assumes things that it cannot demonstrate.  Also science doesn't prove anything, that is for math and logic

You are quite right. Science is a tool for disproving things.

That's why a lot of people don't like to expose their assertions to it.

Ok... please show your disproval using peer reviewed scientific evidence.  Or are you saying that your assertions don't require what you are asking for?

(April 16, 2016 at 1:24 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote:

(April 16, 2016 at 1:04 pm)FebruaryOfReason Wrote: You are quite right. Science is a tool for disproving things.

That's why a lot of people don't like to expose their assertions to it.

Ok... please show your disproval using peer reviewed scientific evidence.  Or are you saying that your assertions don't require what you are asking for?

Eh? I (and several others on this thread) am asking for anything from Chad that we can disprove or even test in any way. Anything specific.
How is that an assertion?

Like for example, how we could go about checking that some guy received a new revelation from Jesus Christ through continuous heavenly visions which he experienced over a period of at least twenty-five years. How would anything about that be distinguishable from some guy just making it all up and telling us that he'd had the revelations, because he wanted the attention?

Or, for example, if Chad believes that "God" will replace the traditional Christian Church, establishing a "New Church", which will worship God in one person (Jesus Christ), how do we know when that's happened? Are there any timescales for the prediction, or anything specific at all about it, or is it all so couched in fuzzy terminology that anyone who believes in it can avoid having to say that the prediction failed, just by disputing its terms in retrospect?

Because if that is the kind of thing Chad thinks constitutes a form of truth outside science, then it's a pretty useless, anaemic kind of "truth".

Brian37,

Brian37 Wrote:Not only are they projections of human desires, there is no way to postulate "eternity" with an infinite cognition as the starting point.

Certainly you can. You would not be here attempting to refute it if it could not be postulated.

Brian37 Wrote:You cannot claim everything has a cause then ignore the implication that your "super cause" has to have a cause itself.

Theists typically don't ignore that implication. We explain that we believe that God is the answer. ChadWooters has already done a creditable job of that.

Brian37 Wrote:"Eternity" is only plausible as an up and down cycle without a cognition. Much like a light switch goes from off to on back to off.

Why is that the only plausible eternity? Why is that plausible at all? Why should eternity cycle between everything and nothing? Why is nothing becoming everything plausible?

The light switch analogy fails because it doesn't cycle by itself. Without cognition it is a fixed state, and not a switch at all. Do you have a better analogy?

Brian37 Wrote:As soon as you postulate a super hero as the cause of that cycle, then it begs the question as to what caused that super hero, and what caused that super hero and so on. The problem is called "infinite regress".

As soon as you postulate cycle 1 as the cause of cycle 2, that begs the question as to what caused cycle 1, and so on. The problem is called "infinite regress."

Perhaps you'd like to postulate something that isn't refuted by the very logic you present to refute your target postulate.

Brian37 Wrote:If you can accept the seasons of the planet changing without a god, just like lightening does not need Thor to be the gap answer, than the universe can also simply be either a finite thing, or the result of the end of another season that lead to our big bang.

And there we are again, in an infinite regression. Thus, the seasons analogy fails as well, because it does not escape the chain of causality that is at the heart of the dilemma, and once again you refute yourself.

You will never succeed in your argument until you postulate something that escapes causality, and when you successfully postulate something that escapes causality you will have nullified your own refutation of God.

Regards,
Shadow_Man

Nope sorry, doesn't work when Muslims or Jews or Hindus argue it either.

(April 16, 2016 at 1:59 pm)Shadow_Man Wrote: As soon as you postulate cycle 1 as the cause of cycle 2, that begs the question as to what caused cycle 1, and so on. The problem is called "infinite regress."

I presume the Abrahamic notion of God - forbidder of shellfish and homosexuality, murderer of his own son, drowner of humanity etc - is not at all subject to such problems of infinite regress?
 

(April 16, 2016 at 1:59 pm)Shadow_Man Wrote: You will never succeed in your argument until you postulate something that escapes causality, and when you successfully postulate something that escapes causality you will have nullified your own refutation of God.

OK, here is my statement of faith (and it is a faith). 

The day that anyone postulates - and successfully tests - an idea that overcomes the flaws in our current understanding of the origin of the universe, is the day we discover a far more detailed, rigorous, empowering and useful idea than the ridiculous notion that "Some guy did it all in seven days and made a woman from a rib".

On that day you will have to generalise your idea of God by yet another order of magnitude to keep him safe from the encroachments of science. You will have to write off a few thousand more bible verses as "just metaphors, not meant to be taken literally".

Yes, I have no evidence for my belief. No, I don't feel in the slightest bit obliged to justify my belief that a made up book of old rubbish cobbled together 1,700 years ago (or 1,400 years ago for that matter) will correspond even vaguely to the awesome truths uncovered by that new idea.

(April 16, 2016 at 1:27 pm)FebruaryOfReason Wrote: Like for example, how we could go about checking that some guy received a new revelation from Jesus Christ through continuous heavenly visions which he experienced over a period of at least twenty-five years....is it all so couched in fuzzy terminology that anyone who believes in it can avoid having to say that the prediction failed, just by disputing its terms in retrospect?

Now you're just trying to move the topic away from your own ignorance. My reasons for accepting Swedenborg's special revelations are highly personal. I am not forcing anyone to accept them and it is pointless to talk about any special revelation with people who do not yet even acknowledge the general revelations. I say that assuming that you know the difference. Your posts, CamusLady, and 37 all demonstrate an inability to distinguish between science, mathematics, and philosophy. Either that, or you all are intentionally conflating them to avoid dealing with arguments none of you are prepared to discuss intelligently.

(April 16, 2016 at 7:18 pm)ChadWooters Wrote:

(April 16, 2016 at 1:27 pm)FebruaryOfReason Wrote: Like for example, how we could go about checking that some guy received a new revelation from Jesus Christ through continuous heavenly visions which he experienced over a period of at least twenty-five years....is it all so couched in fuzzy terminology that anyone who believes in it can avoid having to say that the prediction failed, just by disputing its terms in retrospect?

Now you're just trying to move the topic away from your own ignorance. My reasons for accepting Swedenborg's special revelations are highly personal. I am not forcing anyone to accept them and it is pointless to talk about any special revelation with people who do not yet even acknowledge the general revelations. I say that assuming that you know the difference. Your posts, CamusLady, and 37 all demonstrate an inability to distinguish between science, mathematics, and philosophy. Either that, or you all are intentionally conflating them to avoid dealing with arguments none of you are prepared to discuss intelligently.

You haven't answered a single question posed to you. You've demonstrated nothing of God and nothing of your methods. The only way you know how to answer questions regarding evidence for God is to accuse your opponent of being too ignorant to understand what's in your God detection kit. Let's see the kit. Let's see your tools. "I have no way of showing them to you, therefore you're too ignorant to see them." is not a rational reply.