I agree with theists who say "something can't come from nothing" you know
but then they're like "and it has a mind and it created the universe and it's God!"
I'm like "nope wtf where did that bullshit come from?"

It's like they have a metaphysical insight but it makes their brain explode and causes religious psychosis
[emoji23]

(October 24, 2016 at 4:52 pm)Alasdair Ham Wrote:

(October 24, 2016 at 4:23 pm)ApeNotKillApe Wrote: Imaginary things still physically exist in a sense.

[u]

I also hold that view.

[/u]

Quote:Not ontologically speaking, but still.

I think it must be ontologically speaking. I just think it refers to the ontology of the phenomenological experience of subjective minds with those imaginary ideas or imaginary 'things' that exist at least in the sense that those ideas are present in their brains rather than absent.

More what I meant was that an idea is just a series of electrical impulses and chemicals, which is ultimately just electrons buzzing around atoms, like everything else.

The emergent phenomena of human reason and consciousness is what gives it meaning, like everything else. In the end though it's just arrangements of atoms.

(October 24, 2016 at 9:44 am)Soldat Du Christ Wrote:

(October 24, 2016 at 2:10 am)Jörmungandr Wrote: What are these more proper explanations for things, and how do they fare in terms of the qualities we look for in a good explanation (qualities such as explanatory scope, explanatory power, elegance, parsimony, the number of predictions the explanation makes, its fecundity in terms of making predictions, etc.)?  As noted, Goddidit is an explanation, but a rather poor one in terms of the qualities we look for in a good explanation; in that respect it is no better than, "it just happened."  This is why I say it is no better an explanation than "brute fact."

I'd like to know what you think a more proper explanation looks like as well. The only possible answer is a trancedant cause, because of the impossability of the contrary.

You were the one who proposed that there are better explanations than brute fact, it's up to you to provide one. Again you're operating from a principle which states that they have an explanation and that explanation is God. So far the only evidence you've put forward for this proposition was an argument from ignorance which failed. If you think God is a good explanation for objectivity, then show it. Don't whine about what I haven't provided.

(October 24, 2016 at 9:44 am)Soldat Du Christ Wrote: You see sombody else replied with "Evolution did it", but a natural explanations cannot possibly justify immaterial truths, for example the laws of logic, morality.

Morality is not objective. Add this to the pile of things for which you need some evidence.

(October 24, 2016 at 9:44 am)Soldat Du Christ Wrote: Even you yourself strut about making objective claims all the time, this is because we must pre suppose logic to be logical. . . . . If you actualy lived by what you say you believe, you'd end every sentence with, "but i could be wrong".

You have a lot of assumptions about how I should behave. I accept logic provisionally. You'd do well to spend more time proving your claims than opining about what I do.

(October 24, 2016 at 9:44 am)Soldat Du Christ Wrote: Now you could deny objectivity, like you do. Or embrace objectivity, and refuse to agknowledge the only rational explanation, under the guise of, maybe we will find out one day.

You've lumped many things together not all of which belong together. I'll accept that logic is objective for the sake of argument. I don't agree that morality is objective, but let's say for the sake of argument that it is. How does that get us to God? What role does God play in this?

(October 24, 2016 at 5:11 pm)Alasdair Ham Wrote: I agree with theists who say "something can't come from nothing" you know
but then they're like "and it has a mind and it created the universe and it's God!"
I'm like "nope wtf where did that bullshit come from?"

It's like they have a metaphysical insight but it makes their brain explode and causes religious psychosis
[emoji23]

I can think of only 3 possible beginning states: Nothing, finite something, or infinite something. Can you think of anymore?

(October 24, 2016 at 5:16 pm)ApeNotKillApe Wrote: More what I meant was that an idea is just a series of electrical impulses and chemicals, which is ultimately just electrons buzzing around atoms, like everything else.

The emergent phenomena of reason and consciousness that results is what gives it meaning, like everything else.

Oh I agree with all that.

ETA:

(October 24, 2016 at 5:21 pm)Arkilogue Wrote: I can think of only 3 possible beginning states:

There are only two.

Quote:Nothing,

Nope.

Quote: finite something,

Yes.

Quote: or infinite something.

Yes.

Quote: Can you think of anymore?

Nope. Nor can you.

P.S. Nothing is not a state you thought of.

ETA2: Furthermore, nothing isn't anything you thought of. You can't think of nothing. You can only think of "nothing".

If you're confused by my quote marks making a difference then this is a pertinent citation here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use%E2%80%...istinction

doublepost

(October 24, 2016 at 5:21 pm)Arkilogue Wrote:

(October 24, 2016 at 5:11 pm)Alasdair Ham Wrote: I agree with theists who say "something can't come from nothing" you know
but then they're like "and it has a mind and it created the universe and it's God!"
I'm like "nope wtf where did that bullshit come from?"

It's like they have a metaphysical insight but it makes their brain explode and causes religious psychosis
[emoji23]

I can think of only 3 possible beginning states: Nothing, finite something, or infinite something. Can you think of anymore?

Eternal something.

(October 24, 2016 at 5:22 pm)ApeNotKillApe Wrote: Eternal something.

Infinite would include eternal. If it has no beginning or end in space, it has no beginning or end in time.

That's true.

Here's another certainty: Nothing happened before time.

(October 24, 2016 at 5:18 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: ...I accept logic provisionally.  You'd do well to spend more time proving your claims than opining about what I do...I'll accept that logic is objective for the sake of argument...How does that get us to God?  What role does God play in this?

I don't know, Jor. Does it make any sense for someone to defend a logical demonstration for God's existence (and divine attributes) if the person with whom he debates can back out anytime by questioning the efficacy of reason or the intelligibility of reality?