(October 12, 2011 at 8:13 am)fr0d0 Wrote: So you quoted the right answers, but do you get the rationalisation behind them? ie: there is a point where you don't agree with those definitions and would argue your own rationalisation in favour: where is that point?

Where I disagree on Yaweh's nature is irrelevant, because the issue at hand is whether I can understand your interpretation. What does my differing opinion have to do with understanding yours?

fr0d0 Wrote:If you can quote them but they make no sense to you then that's the same as not understanding. Would you agree?

Yes, but unfortunately I don't have time to break it down. If you insist, I can do it in the ner future.

fr0d0 Wrote:Right. It makes my point too though. "It doesn't make sense therefore we refuse to consider it".

I believe it's saying it's impossible to consider it, not just that they refuse to.

(October 12, 2011 at 1:10 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Point 1. "Until you have something of substance, there is nothing to consider."

So how is a business 'substance'? before it exists or after its function is defined?

Point 2. "If we were to allow function to provide a sort of indirect observation that function would have to align itself to some actual observation."

We observe what's in the universe to have certain function. To make sense of the universe, we apply God. God is that answer.

You might propose another answer. This is the subject in hand: function & not material.

" For example, if the function of god was to save human beings and bring their spirit closer to itself, one would need to observe a spirit. If it were to punish the wicked, one would have to show that the wicked are punished along the lines drawn in a manner that is beyond our control or ability. If it were to create us, one would need to show that we were in fact created. See, it's not difficult to think these things up, and you should know that, since that's what classical apologetics are all about, start to finish. "

All of which we can see to be true from a Christian perspective, so you have proved it.

You're not seriously asking me why a business is "substance" are you. Drivel. Incorporation papers, taxes, wages, invoices, physical assets, etc etc etc. If asked to demonstrate whether or not a business exists it only takes one phone call to be armed with all of the evidence one needs.

Great claim following. The universe has a certain function. God makes the universe "make sense". What is that function? How have you determined this to be the function? What predictions can be made based upon that function? How does god fit into this function? What can then be observed about god from within the boundaries of this function? How have you determined this? What predictions can be made based upon this observation?

Top it off with the cherry of the the subjectivity of truth? Glad to know that ones perspective has anything at all to due with whether or not one is presenting a factually accurate description of reality. :igh::

This video explains the theistic worldview and to reject that is not being irrational.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c7ZIZ-Upa...D35CC8B48F

Thank you Nappeun for this post. It was a very interesting video.

Chris

(October 12, 2011 at 3:30 am)fr0d0 Wrote: A bag full of fallacies there. What about the many conversations we've had where I did actually convincingly dismiss your many propositioons? I guess you've reduced this to insults and have given up trying.

A response as rational as theism itself. I cant remember a single occasion where you have refuted anything, other than inserting a wiki link to something obscure which you presumabley find convincing. Whenever you have attempted to make an argument it has been weak. You also need to learn the difference between an insult and someone pointing out your weak arguments. The ultimate irony is whenever that is done you are the one the resorts to insults.

Quote:I don't at all believe that magic and mysticism can be rational.

Yet you believe that a man was also a god, that there was a creator who wished the universe into existence via an incantation, that the man-god healed people suffering from possession, that water turns to wine, that a few thousand folks can be fed off a fish and a loaf, the prayers might be answered, that miracles occur, that people rise from the dead, that the truth comes from introspection and within. Or maybe you don't really believe any of these things, but where does that leave your xtianity?

Quote:And I know atheists can be many things. What I'm discussing here specifically is the materialist perspective, as that is the only opposition that I see presented.

You weren't actually I directly quoted what you specifically said. You raised materialism later. Your argument, such as I am able to comprehend it, is that there is 'function' in the universe, and that whilst we cannot detect a god (because materialism is the current paradigm) that doesn't mean there isn't a way to know god or know that god exists. The analogy you go on to give is a business.

There are several problems here. First is your definition of function, ie you have not defined it. What functions are you referring too exactly that give strong evidence of the divine? Your argument cant take off unless you can point to something. The universe is as it is, it is subject to entity based causal law which means that things operate with accordance with their own identity. Secondly your analogy of a business really doesn't work. You do not seem to have a decent theory of concepts in your epistemology, such that you invoke the term 'business' as though the business really exists. A business is a conceptual integration of many things, including assets, paperwork, people (tangible things), alongside passion, drive, goodwill, loyalty (intangible things). But you cannot then go on to claim that the conceptual thing (in this case a business) 'exists', it only does so in our conscious mind. It has no separate physical instantiation in the universe and it is a floating abstraction fallacy to assert otherwise. There do appear to be other issues with stolen concept fallacies and category errors, but you have not formulated a proper argument to adequately conclude on these.

Quote:You say I've proved diddly squat, which is nice. But you have no reasoning to support that. So we are forced to disregard your statement.

I think you'll find I did provide an argument if you check back through the posts. And I have pointed out above why I don't think you have provided one. At least one that we can get our teeth into.

I think that Fr0d0 is admitting a plea of insanity. It is his best defense.

I'm not insulting you here Scarlet, so don't pre-judge the discussion.

(October 13, 2011 at 12:11 pm)Captain Scarlet Wrote: I cant remember a single occasion where you have refuted anything

Then we have a serious problem.

(October 13, 2011 at 12:11 pm)Captain Scarlet Wrote:

Quote:I don't at all believe that magic and mysticism can be rational.

Yet you believe that a man was also a god, that the man-god healed people suffering from possession, that water turns to wine, that a few thousand folks can be fed off a fish and a loaf, the prayers might be answered, that miracles occur, that people rise from the dead.

[rubbish cut]
What has that got to do with magic or mysticism? If you really don't understand it as much as this, with your other wild statements, then we're putting the cart before the horse here, and need to go back to your much more basic questions that you were asking when you first joined the forum.

(October 13, 2011 at 12:11 pm)Captain Scarlet Wrote: Or maybe you don't really believe any of these things, but where does that leave your xtianity?

I do believe those things, yet I don't believe in magic or mysticism. Maybe for you that would be what it would take, and I can understand why. But in doing so you fail to address my belief.

(October 13, 2011 at 12:11 pm)Captain Scarlet Wrote:

Quote:And I know atheists can be many things. What I'm discussing here specifically is the materialist perspective, as that is the only opposition that I see presented.

You weren't actually I directly quoted what you specifically said. You raised materialism later. Your argument, such as I am able to comprehend it, is that there is 'function' in the universe, and that whilst we cannot detect a god (because materialism is the current paradigm) that doesn't mean there isn't a way to know god or know that god exists. The analogy you go on to give is a business.

I didn't raise materialism, others did. Rhythm chose to address the analogy of a business out of a few that I listed.
My argument is, that to propose that materialism is enough to base your world view upon is deeply flawed. The examples of non material but function based examples proves that. No matter what Rhythm thinks are material proofs, those are incidental.

(October 13, 2011 at 12:11 pm)Captain Scarlet Wrote: There are several problems here. First is your definition of function, ie you have not defined it.

I didn't make the claim.

(October 13, 2011 at 12:11 pm)Captain Scarlet Wrote: Secondly your analogy of a business really doesn't work. You do not seem to have a decent theory of concepts in your epistemology, such that you invoke the term 'business' as though the business really exists. A business is a conceptual integration of many things, including assets, paperwork, people (tangible things), alongside passion, drive, goodwill, loyalty (intangible things). But you cannot then go on to claim that the conceptual thing (in this case a business) 'exists', it only does so in our conscious mind.

Bolded: Precisely the point.

How can you say that a business doesn't exist? You are of course speaking in the language of materialism, which can only account for materially existant things. But this proves, unless you are making what to me is an unsupportable point (that a business cannot exist), that some things can be known to exist through their function.

(October 13, 2011 at 12:11 pm)Captain Scarlet Wrote: It has no separate physical instantiation in the universe and it is a floating abstraction fallacy to assert otherwise.

A floating abstraction so it cannot exist? A business cannot exist > businesses do exist > the accusation of fallacy is disproven.

If only you could give an example of "non-material but function based" things. A business doesn't fit the bill. Let's say, just for laughs, that a business did fit the bill. Does that say anything about the Abrahamic god? Nope, says something about businesses. Good for you, now prove that the non-material function based entity known as god exists, and that your description of said entity is accurate.

(While there is no such thing as a business with no material evidence, those that lack the proper material evidence have a name. Illegal. Bet it's the same where you live.)

(October 15, 2011 at 7:37 am)fr0d0 Wrote: What has that got to do with magic or mysticism? If you really don't understand it as much as this, with your other wild statements, [snip].

I'm afraid xtianity has cornered the market on wild statements.

(October 15, 2011 at 7:37 am)fr0d0 Wrote: I do believe those things, yet I don't believe in magic or mysticism. Maybe for you that would be what it would take, and I can understand why. But in doing so you fail to address my belief.

.....and the difference between magic and all of those claimed miracles is....?

Quote:"My argument is, that to propose that materialism is enough to base your world view upon is deeply flawed. The examples of non material but function based examples proves that"

....how does this.....

Quote:I didn't make the claim. [wrt function in the universe]

....tally with this....? What is the definition of function you would like us to consider. What examples of function in the universe point to a divine being?

Quote:But you cannot then go on to claim that the conceptual thing (in this case a business) 'exists', it only does so in our conscious mind. Bolded: Precisely the point.

How can you say that a business doesn't exist? You are of course speaking in the language of materialism, which can only account for materially existant things. But this proves, unless you are making what to me is an unsupportable point (that a business cannot exist), that some things can be known to exist through their function.

Talk about missing the point! The bit you didn't bold, was the important bit. You need to develop a theory of concepts to help you discern what you know from what you think you know. You do not seem to use any such epistemology. You are asserting businesses exist, without defining either business or existence. I have given you my definition and my reasoning as to why they do not, in that they are conceptual integrations of tangible and intangible things, and as a concept it has no separate instantiation in the universe. Sure businesses trade, much like money does. As concepts money and businesses work very nicely, but a business is not a real thing, much like money has no real value.

Quote:A floating abstraction so it cannot exist? A business cannot exist > businesses do exist > the accusation of fallacy is disproven

See above re missing the point.

Hey Scarlet

"Xtianity" encompasses a very large amalgamtion of ideas to you, most of which I would regard as anti Christian, as I'm sure you would acknowledge. I don't think it helps a discussion to address what you know doesn't apply to me, is all I was saying.

"Magic" is slight of hand; false; trickery; not true; deception. Miracles are cliamed to be true; not deception; divinely facilitated positive events. I have made no claims about function, but I point out the problem with an exclusivity in proposing material existence is all that can be said to exist.

Yeah the bit I didn't bold was completely off the subject. I don't care what examples you use to see that some things are defined by their function... but that they do is very plain to see. You seem to be willing to distort reality in order to dismiss that: "Businesses don't exist".