(February 16, 2012 at 12:28 am)genkaus Wrote: Yes, it is truly futile for you to try and talk intelligently.

With people as ignorant and arrogant as you, I guess so.

(February 16, 2012 at 3:15 am)genkaus Wrote: If you think that an axiom depends upon any other things, then you must really not understand what an axiom means.

If you believe an axiom to be anything other than an unproven assumption that is used as the basis to begin to build a logical formalism, then not only are you spreading lies about what can or cannot be proven, but you are also spreading lies about logical formalism itself, and the very nature of axioms.

You're really no different from a radical Christian Fundamentalists who spreads similar lies about ancient Hebrew mythologies.

Lies are lies. And spreading false information is wrong. Even when done innocently because of personal misunderstanding. I believe that you are indeed just grossly naive and that you have a gross misunderstanding of logic. Not unlike the radical Christian fundies, it's not doubt that you believe your own delusions. So you no doubt believe your own ignorance.

But the truth is that no professional scientific, mathematical, or philosophical community would support your arrogant nonsense. Your personal opinions on this matter are absolutely not supported by any professional community.

You're never going to sell your ignorance to me. I know better. You'll have to find ignorant uneducated people to sell your false logic to.

It's truly a shame that people like you exist. All you do is cause innocent people to believe your misunderstandings.

What you're spreading is lies. Whether intentional or just due to your own ignorance. Either way it's false information. You're no different from a radical fundamental religious extremest.

You're just spreading your own lame opinions as if they are the indisputable word of God.

Hogwash.

That fact that anyone would even support your views, only shows that atheism can indeed by like a religion where people climb on board a faith-based agenda to support lies just because they feel like it.

Humanity to date, is simply not armed with sufficient information about the true nature of reality to even remotely be able to make any decisive claims about what may or may not be possible.

You're faith-based belief in the power of your axiom of existence, is basically a faith-based religion on your part.

That fact that you can't see that, only shows that you don't have anymore ability to open your mind than a Christian fundamentalist.

Your axiom of existence has become your "God".

And you worship it like a dutiful servant.

~~~~

In fact, not only does your axiom have no clout when considering the question of the true nature of reality, but our very system of "logic" has no clout.

We have absolutely no reason whatsoever to believe that the true nature of reality should even need to conform to ideas and concepts that we deem to be 'logical'.

On the contrary, observations in Quantum Mechanics has revealed to us that the quantum world most likely obeys laws that we would deem to be "illogical".

General Relativity shows us that the true nature of time (whatever that might even be) is most likely something that completely defies anything that we would deem to be logical.

In short, your very assumption that the true nature of reality even need to be 'logical' in terms of how a human brain makes sense of things has no merit.

If it can't even be determined that the true nature of reality must even adhere to what we deem to be 'logical', then that totally pull the rug out from under any axioms we may personally believe to be 'logical'.

You can't even demand that reality must be 'logical' much less demand that it must adhere to your favorite pet axioms.

~~~

All you're doing is displaying an extremely limited ability to even begin to think beyond "classical logic 101". And you clearly don't even understand how that simple subject works.

So, yes, it is futile for me to try to talk to you intelligently, because you evidently aren't capable of comprehending real intelligence. All you're doing is hiding in a classical box of very simplistic logic and pretending that nothing can possibly exist beyond that.

That's all you're doing.

And then you're expecting me to climb into that very limited box with you?

No way.

(February 16, 2012 at 12:25 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: With people as ignorant and arrogant as you, I guess so.

With any person of moderate intelligence.

(February 16, 2012 at 12:25 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: If you believe an axiom to be anything other than an unproven assumption that is used as the basis to begin to build a logical formalism, then not only are you spreading lies about what can or cannot be proven, but you are also spreading lies about logical formalism itself, and the very nature of axioms.

The axiom I stated is the basis of logical formalism itself. There can be no proof, no truth and no validity without assumption of that axiom. Tell me if this concept is too hard for you to understand.

(February 16, 2012 at 12:25 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: You're really no different from a radical Christian Fundamentalists who spreads similar lies about ancient Hebrew mythologies.

Lies are lies. And spreading false information is wrong. Even when done innocently because of personal misunderstanding. I believe that you are indeed just grossly naive and that you have a gross misunderstanding of logic. Not unlike the radical Christian fundies, it's not doubt that you believe your own delusions. So you no doubt believe your own ignorance.

Get on a soap-box would you?

Here's another truth. You like to post walls upon walls of post, none of which address any of the arguments I made and simply reassert the same thing: you cannot know it because there are still gaps in knowledge about it.

(February 16, 2012 at 12:25 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: But the truth is that no professional scientific, mathematical, or philosophical community would support your arrogant nonsense. Your personal opinions on this matter are absolutely not supported by any professional community.

First argumentum ad ignoratiam and now argumentum ad verecundiam.
Atleast you are consistent in the fallacies you use to justify yourself.

(February 16, 2012 at 12:25 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: You're never going to sell your ignorance to me. I know better. You'll have to find ignorant uneducated people to sell your false logic to.

That would be a shame. Because that would mean that ignorant uneducated people are more intelligent than you.

(February 16, 2012 at 12:25 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: It's truly a shame that people like you exist. All you do is cause innocent people to believe your misunderstandings.

And if your idea of primacy of consciousness had any bearing on truth, I wouldn't. Its proof positive that I'm right.

(February 16, 2012 at 12:25 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: What you're spreading is lies. Whether intentional or just due to your own ignorance. Either way it's false information. You're no different from a radical fundamental religious extremest.

The fool who bases his beliefs on ignorance claims knowledge of the truth without knowing from whence the truth originates.

(February 16, 2012 at 12:25 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: You're just spreading your own lame opinions as if they are the indisputable word of God.

No, they are the indisputable world of reason. Much more reliable that any word of god or your word of spiritual reality.

(February 16, 2012 at 12:25 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: Hogwash.

That fact that anyone would even support your views, only shows that atheism can indeed by like a religion where people climb on board a faith-based agenda to support lies just because they feel like it.

Humanity to date, is simply not armed with sufficient information about the true nature of reality to even remotely be able to make any decisive claims about what may or may not be possible.

True nature of reality? Again? Seriously?

For someone who claims to be a scientist, you certainly are very resistant to self-correction.

Oh, now I get it. You are a scientist in the same way Deepak Chopra is a doctor.

Besides, we can and do make decisive claims about what this other reality is not all the time. You did so yourself. did you or did you not state that this reality would not be bound by spacetime? That's making quite a decisive claim about the nature of "true" reality.

(February 16, 2012 at 12:25 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: You're faith-based belief in the power of your axiom of existence, is basically a faith-based religion on your part.

That fact that you can't see that, only shows that you don't have anymore ability to open your mind than a Christian fundamentalist.

Your axiom of existence has become your "God".

And you worship it like a dutiful servant.

You use your words the same way you use concepts. Without regard for their meaning and what they represent. Do you really believe that I hold this axiom in reverence? That I somehow honor it?

That axiom is simply the identification of nature of reality. I have no emotional connection to it.

(February 16, 2012 at 12:25 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: In fact, not only does your axiom have no clout when considering the question of the true nature of reality, but our very system of "logic" has no clout.

Clout? Do you even care any more what words you use or are they all the same to you?

(February 16, 2012 at 12:25 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: We have absolutely no reason whatsoever to believe that the true nature of reality should even need to conform to ideas and concepts that we deem to be 'logical'.

No. But if there is to be any system of logic of any form whatsoever, then the acceptance of "primacy of existence" is inescapable.

(February 16, 2012 at 12:25 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: On the contrary, observations in Quantum Mechanics has revealed to us that the quantum world most likely obeys laws that we would deem to be "illogical".

General Relativity shows us that the true nature of time (whatever that might even be) is most likely something that completely defies anything that we would deem to be logical.

And what we "deem" to be logical and what is logical are not the same things. What is logical does not depend what we "deem" to be logical. If primacy of consciousness were "true", then that would be the case. It is not. Another point for "primacy of existence".

(February 16, 2012 at 12:25 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: In short, your very assumption that the true nature of reality even need to be 'logical' in terms of how a human brain makes sense of things has no merit.

If it is not logical, then it is illogical. In that case the true nature of reality is false at the same time and it is the same as the true nature of illusion.

This is the nature of reality you are proposing: illogical, irrational and self-contradictory.

(February 16, 2012 at 12:25 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: If it can't even be determined that the true nature of reality must even adhere to what we deem to be 'logical', then that totally pull the rug out from under any axioms we may personally believe to be 'logical'.

You can't even demand that reality must be 'logical' much less demand that it must adhere to your favorite pet axioms.

Here you go again - equivocating between what we deem to be logical and what is logical. You seem to be adding fallacy of equivocation to your list.

Besides, axiom of existence if the basis for logic itself. It is not that "if actual reality is logical then it is possible for axiom of existence to apply", but "only if axiom of existence applies, can reality qualify for being logical".

(February 16, 2012 at 12:25 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: All you're doing is displaying an extremely limited ability to even begin to think beyond "classical logic 101". And you clearly don't even understand how that simple subject works.

I'm curious. Did you even study logic? Did you even comprehend the fact that it starts with the law of identity, which is a corollary of axiom of existence?

(February 16, 2012 at 12:25 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: So, yes, it is futile for me to try to talk to you intelligently, because you evidently aren't capable of comprehending real intelligence. All you're doing is hiding in a classical box of very simplistic logic and pretending that nothing can possibly exist beyond that.

Its interesting how a person who has done nothing other that repeatedly claiming his own ignorance knows what "real" intelligence is. But then, that has been the battle cry of religions rooted in your philosophy for centuries.

Make no mistake - every religion out there is the necessary consequence of accepting your philosophy. The principle involved is simple - garbage in, garbage out.

(February 16, 2012 at 2:52 pm)genkaus Wrote: Besides, we can and do make decisive claims about what this other reality is not all the time. You did so yourself. did you or did you not state that this reality would not be bound by spacetime? That's making quite a decisive claim about the nature of "true" reality.

What I pointed out is the fact that we have observational scientific reasons to conclude (even using our own concepts of logic and reasoning) that there is more to reality than the mere physics of spacetime.

So even our limited knowledge of reality, suggests that this is indeed the case.

If we are going to accept observational "evidence" then we have no choice to acknowledge that even based the scientific method of inquiry we are forced to consider that the true nature of reality goes beyond what we deem to be reasonable or logical, and it certainly defies the classical laws of physics that we have come to cherish.

Ask any physicist if the quantum world can be explained using classical physics and you'll get a resounding and definite, "No."

Yet, you demand that any underlying reality must adhere to your notions of logic.

Why should the foundation of reality be dependent upon what a human brain perceives to be "logical"?

You're attempting to claim that a human brain can logically rule out something?

That very claim right there assumes that the true nature of reality must be limited to how a human brain thinks.

Even as the most passionate believer in a purely secular reality, surely you can see the fallacy of such "logic".

If you can't. Then I honestly don't know what to tell you.

Slinging personal mud between us isn't going to solve anything.

I'm sorry I even bothered to go there.

But let's face it, you are the one who is attempting to demand that I swallow your conclusions as though they represent absolute undeniable truths that cannot be refuted.

I say, "Pft".

I can, and already have, refuted you claims. They are totally standing on quicksand. You simply do not have a basis to support your claims in any absolute way.

If you believe that you do, then you are in error.

It's that simple.

And if you were taught to believe these things by a university, I would suggest going back and demanding a refund on the tuition. They taught you lies.

---

(February 16, 2012 at 2:52 pm)genkaus Wrote: I'm curious. Did you even study logic? Did you even comprehend the fact that it starts with the law of identity, which is a corollary of axiom of existence?

You're talking about classical philosophical logic. The kind taught in philosophy departments. Those teachings are out-dated. They make classical assumptions. Those programs are also slow to keep up with modern advances in scientific knowledge.

I'm talking about mathematical logic. The kind used in the sciences. They don't start with any specific axiom. On the contrary you can build a logical formalism starting with any axioms you so desire. All that is required is that your logical system is not self-contradicting.

This is why in mathematics they can speak about 3 different types of geometries, all based on different axioms. All 3 geometries are self-consistent, but clearly not consistent with each other.

Therefore they are all valid within their own domain of applicability.

So, it's no wonder you think you can know something. You're basing your 'logic' on classical philosophical thinking. Those people still cling to the idea that 'truths' are absolute.

Those days are long gone.

Einstein showed that 'truths' are relative. What's 'truth' for you may not be 'truth' for someone else. Especially with respect to the passage of time.

There can be no such thing as an 'absolute truth' even within the fabric of spacetime.

Yet, you'd like to hold that things that you deem to be 'truth' must hold true everywhere under all imaginable situations.

You apparently subscribe to a belief in 'absolute truth'. And to make matters far worse, you even believe that you currently hold such a truth in your hand that cannot be refuted or denied by anyone.

Like I say, it's almost as silly as claiming to hold the "word of God" in your hand that cannot be denied!

Baloney.

We don't even have any rational reason to believe than any such 'absolute truths' could or should exist.

Yet, here you are demanding that we must accept that you hold an absolute truth that cannot be denied and must necessarily be applicable everywhere, even in the yet unknown regions of reality?

Give it up.

You may as well be preaching the spaghetti God.

(February 16, 2012 at 3:59 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: What I pointed out is the fact that we have observational scientific reasons to conclude (even using our own concepts of logic and reasoning) that there is more to reality than the mere physics of spacetime.

So even our limited knowledge of reality, suggests that this is indeed the case.

Similarly, our knowledge of consciousness suggests that it cannot exist without a spatio-temporal framework in place.

(February 16, 2012 at 3:59 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: If we are going to accept observational "evidence" then we have no choice to acknowledge that even based the scientific method of inquiry we are forced to consider that the true nature of reality goes beyond what we deem to be reasonable or logical, and it certainly defies the classical laws of physics that we have come to cherish.

Ask any physicist if the quantum world can be explained using classical physics and you'll get a resounding and definite, "No."

:yawn:. Again with the irrelevant crap.

(February 16, 2012 at 3:59 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: Yet, you demand that any underlying reality must adhere to your notions of logic.

No, I argue that if the reality that is the basis of this one does not adhere to logic (not necessarily mine), then neither would this one.

(February 16, 2012 at 3:59 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: Why should the foundation of reality be dependent upon what a human brain perceives to be "logical"?

You're attempting to claim that a human brain can logically rule out something?

That very claim right there assumes that the true nature of reality must be limited to how a human brain thinks.

If reality were dependent upon how or what a human thinks, then your "spiritual" reality would indeed be the case. It is precisely because reality is independent of it that your spiritual reality can be ruled out.

(February 16, 2012 at 3:59 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: Even as the most passionate believer in a purely secular reality, surely you can see the fallacy of such "logic".

Yes, and that is the fallacy of your logic.

(February 16, 2012 at 3:59 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: If you can't. Then I honestly don't know what to tell you.

Slinging personal mud between us isn't going to solve anything.

Says the baboon indiscriminately disseminating his poo.

(February 16, 2012 at 3:59 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: I'm sorry I even bothered to go there.

But let's face it, you are the one who is attempting to demand that I swallow your conclusions as though they represent absolute undeniable truths that cannot be refuted.

Conclusions? You really don;t know what axioms mean, do you?

(February 16, 2012 at 3:59 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: I say, "Pft".

I can, and already have, refuted you claims. They are totally standing on quicksand. You simply do not have a basis to support your claims in any absolute way.

If you believe that you do, then you are in error.

It's that simple

How many times do I have to tell you? Your imagination has no bearing on reality.

(February 16, 2012 at 3:59 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: And if you were taught to believe these things by a university, I would suggest going back and demanding a refund on the tuition. They taught you lies.

I suggest you go back and demand an explanation from your parents. Ask them what they fed you that made you so irrational.

(February 16, 2012 at 3:59 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: You're talking about classical philosophical logic. The kind taught in philosophy departments. Those teachings are out-dated. They make classical assumptions. Those programs are also slow to keep up with modern advances in scientific knowledge.

I'm talking about mathematical logic. The kind used in the sciences. They don't start with any specific axiom. On the contrary you can build a logical formalism starting with any axioms you so desire. All that is required is that your logical system is not self-contradicting.

This is why in mathematics they can speak about 3 different types of geometries, all based on different axioms. All 3 geometries are self-consistent, but clearly not consistent with each other.

Therefore they are all valid within their own domain of applicability.

We are talking about what exists and what does not, we are talking metaphysics. That is a part of philosophy. The domain applicable here is philosophy.

(February 16, 2012 at 3:59 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: So, it's no wonder you think you can know something. You're basing your 'logic' on classical philosophical thinking. Those people still cling to the idea that 'truths' are absolute.

No wonder you don't know anything. Classical philosophy is not the basis of logic, it is the product - a product based on limited understanding, no doubt, but a product nonetheless.

Incidentally, can you name one field of mathematics where the law of identity is inapplicable?

(February 16, 2012 at 3:59 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: Those days are long gone.

Einstein showed that 'truths' are relative. What's 'truth' for you may not be 'truth' for someone else. Especially with respect to the passage of time.

There can be no such thing as an 'absolute truth' even within the fabric of spacetime.

I must have missed the part where Einstein said "there can be no such thing as truth".

IF there are to be any truths, relative or otherwise, logic must be applicable. FOR logic to be applicable, the axiom of existence must be assumed.

(February 16, 2012 at 3:59 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: Yet, you'd like to hold that things that you deem to be 'truth' must hold true everywhere under all imaginable situations.

No. Where the axiom is inapplicable, no logic (understood by humans or otherwise) would apply and there could be no truth and no knowledge regarding it. But if you can imagine it, then by definition it is knowable. That is a contradiction.

(February 16, 2012 at 3:59 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: You apparently subscribe to a belief in 'absolute truth'. And to make matters far worse, you even believe that you currently hold such a truth in your hand that cannot be refuted or denied by anyone.

Like I say, it's almost as silly as claiming to hold the "word of God" in your hand that cannot be denied!

Baloney.

We don't even have any rational reason to believe than any such 'absolute truths' could or should exist.

Yet, here you are demanding that we must accept that you hold an absolute truth that cannot be denied and must necessarily be applicable everywhere, even in the yet unknown regions of reality?

Give it up.

You may as well be preaching the spaghetti God.

No. There is no such thing as an absolute truth.

This axiomatic statement cannot be judged either true of false, since the very concepts of truth and falsehood depends upon it. It is not true or false - it simply is. It is assumed in every statement of knowledge you make and in every statement you claim as truth, because without the assumption, there can be no such thing as truth or knowledge. There can be no rational basis for belief.

You want to believe that everything you perceive through your sense is true? Then you must accept that you are not projecting and that requires accepting that it exists independently of your perception.

You want to believe that everything you see is an illusion? Then you must accept that you are not imagining that its an illusion and then that fact must exist independently of your belief. Either way, it is inescapable.

(February 17, 2012 at 7:06 am)genkaus Wrote: Similarly, our knowledge of consciousness suggests that it cannot exist without a spatio-temporal framework in place.

Apparently you're aware of your very own mistakes but can't see them.

"Our knowledge of Consciousness?"

What exactly does that entail? It necessarily entails our very limited experience and observation of a human brain and how we define 'consciousness' based on that very limited model.

For all we know that state of consciousness could be a very limited restricted type of consciousness with respect to what's actually possible in reality. Moreover, you can't even be sure if the physical brain itself is what is actually having this experience of consciousness. In fact, that's at the very heart of my questions. And it's a question that has not yet been answered, nor do I have any reason to believe that it ever could be answered scientifically. If that is indeed the case, then science could never rule out the possibility that something else is actually experiencing this phenomenon.

In that, that's precisely the hypothesis being proposed by the Eastern Mystics. That something else is actually using this spatio-temporal framework to have this experience.

So you haven't ruled-out the Eastern Mystical view of spirit at all. All you've done is shown a complete ignorance of what the mystical philosophy is even suggesting.

(February 17, 2012 at 7:06 am)genkaus Wrote: ... suggests that it (consciousness) cannot exist without a spatio-temporal framework in place

Sure, I've already conceded to that as being reasonable.

What I am not accepting is your demand that the spacetime fabric in which we apparent live is the be-all and end-all of every possible spatio-temporal framework.

In fact, I have strong scientific reasons for believing that our physical universe may actually be a very limited and small part of a much larger framework that may have totally different spatio-temporal characteristics.

In our limited knowledge of spacetime we can't even be sure if 'time' exists as we perceive it to be. So to even speak of a temporal framework is to speak of something that we truly have no understanding of at all in terms of what's possible in reality. For all we know there could be no past and future at all but rather all that exists is some sort of incomprehensible "now" that is capable of generating an illusion of past and future.

This isn't just weird speculation. This actually falls out of General Relativity. General Relativity demands that there can be no absolute 'now' for all observers. From that it necessarily follows that everyone's 'relative now' must simultaneously exist in a sense. And this leads serious physicists to hypothesize that the "true nature of time" may be far different from how we perceive it and believe to experience it.

The same thing is true of the "fabric" of space itself. In the quantum world (the underlying substrate of spacetime) the very notion of space itself may be totally different.

In fact, I personally believe that in the quantum world concepts like "time" and "space" are totally separate and independent phenomenon. It is actually when they become dependent upon each other that this gives rise to a seeming 'fabric' of spacetime. A melding together of space and time in a way that is co-dependent.

And I'm not the only one who hypothesizes this. In fact, if I claimed to be the owner of this hypothesis I'm quite sure that people could readily point to books by other scientists who have already proposed the same idea.

In fact, Igor Novikov is certainly one high-profile physicists who does indeed propose these types of hypothesis. Not to imply that I agree with everything that Igor Novikov possesses. But I'm just saying that this is being entertained by various scientists and cosmologists.

So for you to say that you can 'rule-out' notions of spirit based on your very limited meaning of a spatio-temporal fabric is totally unwarranted because all you are doing is demanding that everyone accept your limited views of what spatio-temporal even means.

Its interesting how you can post walls upon walls of text without actually addressing most of the points. Then you go ahead and repost the points that were refuted in the previous post.

(February 17, 2012 at 3:05 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: Apparently you're aware of your very own mistakes but can't see them.

"Our knowledge of Consciousness?"

What exactly does that entail? It necessarily entails our very limited experience and observation of a human brain and how we define 'consciousness' based on that very limited model.

For all we know that state of consciousness could be a very limited restricted type of consciousness with respect to what's actually possible in reality. Moreover, you can't even be sure if the physical brain itself is what is actually having this experience of consciousness. In fact, that's at the very heart of my questions. And it's a question that has not yet been answered, nor do I have any reason to believe that it ever could be answered scientifically. If that is indeed the case, then science could never rule out the possibility that something else is actually experiencing this phenomenon.

Can you please describe how consciousness can be anything other than phenomenological? With all your blabber about gaps in knowledge and your argument from imagination, you should be able to give a logically consistent view of how a phenomenon, the identifying features of which are its space-time bound actions, can be independent of space-time.

(February 17, 2012 at 3:05 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: In that, that's precisely the hypothesis being proposed by the Eastern Mystics. That something else is actually using this spatio-temporal framework to have this experience.

So you haven't ruled-out the Eastern Mystical view of spirit at all. All you've done is shown a complete ignorance of what the mystical philosophy is even suggesting.

It is ruled out - again - because it is self-refuting. Look at the words you used to describe the concept - this thing is "using" and to "have". All active verbs which indicate that the decisions of this consciousness would be bound by space-time.

Try to explain the concept of independence of consciousness from spacetime without relying on concepts which couldn't possibly be.

(February 17, 2012 at 3:05 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: Sure, I've already conceded to that as being reasonable.

What I am not accepting is your demand that the spacetime fabric in which we apparent live is the be-all and end-all of every possible spatio-temporal framework.

In fact, I have strong scientific reasons for believing that our physical universe may actually be a very limited and small part of a much larger framework that may have totally different spatio-temporal characteristics.

In our limited knowledge of spacetime we can't even be sure if 'time' exists as we perceive it to be. So to even speak of a temporal framework is to speak of something that we truly have no understanding of at all in terms of what's possible in reality. For all we know there could be no past and future at all but rather all that exists is some sort of incomprehensible "now" that is capable of generating an illusion of past and future.

This isn't just weird speculation. This actually falls out of General Relativity. General Relativity demands that there can be no absolute 'now' for all observers. From that it necessarily follows that everyone's 'relative now' must simultaneously exist in a sense. And this leads serious physicists to hypothesize that the "true nature of time" may be far different from how we perceive it and believe to experience it.

The same thing is true of the "fabric" of space itself. In the quantum world (the underlying substrate of spacetime) the very notion of space itself may be totally different.

In fact, I personally believe that in the quantum world concepts like "time" and "space" are totally separate and independent phenomenon. It is actually when they become dependent upon each other that this gives rise to a seeming 'fabric' of spacetime. A melding together of space and time in a way that is co-dependent.

And I'm not the only one who hypothesizes this. In fact, if I claimed to be the owner of this hypothesis I'm quite sure that people could readily point to books by other scientists who have already proposed the same idea.

In fact, Igor Novikov is certainly one high-profile physicists who does indeed propose these types of hypothesis. Not to imply that I agree with everything that Igor Novikov possesses. But I'm just saying that this is being entertained by various scientists and cosmologists.

So for you to say that you can 'rule-out' notions of spirit based on your very limited meaning of a spatio-temporal fabric is totally unwarranted because all you are doing is demanding that everyone accept your limited views of what spatio-temporal even means.

That's a long way to go simply to change your tune. So now, instead of this spiritual reality being independent of space-time, it is simply dependent on a different kind of space-time?

I agree that within a context of space-time, albeit a different one from what we know, it is possible for consciousness to emerge. But it still wouldn't be inherent to that framework any more that consciousness of this framework is to this one.

I never claimed that it wouldn't be phenomenological. All I have ever claimed is that it wouldn't necessarily be restricted to the very limited picture of "phenomenon" that you are restricting your philosophy to.

And besides, the argument for "The God of the Gaps" is actually a term that applies to creationists who argue against evolution based on the idea that there are 'gaps' in our understanding of evolution.

I totally agree that those kinds of arguments are totally unwarranted. Mainly because the 'gaps' in our knowledge of evolution are indeed small, and decrease daily. Evolution is basically proven beyond a reasonable doubt as far as I'm concerned.

So the "God of the Gaps" idea doesn't even apply to the concept of spirit that I'm talking about.

Moreover, I'm not suggesting that just because we don't know everything that his means that a spiritual essence of reality must be true.

On the contrary, all I have ever claimed at any point is that it can't be ruled out.

You're argument is that you claim that it can be ruled-out.

And that is the only thing that I have ever been addressing with you.

And I stand firm in my position, un-wavered by your claims. Because your claim simply don't apply to the spiritual philosophies that I'm considering.

And as far as I'm concerned I've made a solid case for that already.




See, there you go again attempting to use totally false erroneous arguments that can't be applied. This time your appealing to the truly futile semantic approach. Now you're going to try to argue that semantically these terms must necessarily be restricted to our previous classical intuitive views if they are to have any meaning to us at all.

That is a totally empty argument devoid of anything but self-delusion.

We are forced to use words from our existence vocabulary because those are the only terms that we understand. But our grossly limited semantic language cannot be used as an argument to place limitations on what the true nature of reality must be.




Concepts that couldn't possible be?

There's the flaw in your extremely limited thinking right there.

We already have scientific reasons to believe that there already exists concepts and behaviors of "realty" that we may very well have extreme problems wrapping our limited minds around.

Steven Weinberg says it quite elegantly, "We have no guaranteed that the true nature of reality must be explainable in a way that makes theoretical physicists happy"

And the same is true of philosophers.

All you're basically doing is demanding that the true nature of reality must fit your personal limited way of thinking to make you happy. And therefore you can rule out anything that you deem would make you unhappy.

That's ridiculous.



That has always been my stance from the get-go. Although it's almost incorrect to call it a different kind of "space-time". It's simply a different structure altogether. Concepts such as space and time may not even be valid concepts in that other structure.

So what could we even mean by structure you may ask?

Well, the existence of information period. The existence of information implies that there must be some for of structure even if the information itself is that structure. There are scientific reasons to believe that in the underlying quantum world that gives rise to what we call "spacetime", there must necessarily exist information.

And the existence of information implies some form of structure at some level.

So (based on our limited semantic terms) we can conclude that, if spirit exists, it must have some form of structure, but not necessarily in terms of space and time as we perceive it.

Maybe it's some other form that we can't even begin to comprehend. In fact, that precisely the premise or axiom that is at the heart of Eastern Mysticism. The axiom that whatever exists as the underlying mystical nature of reality is indeed, most likely beyond our ability to comprehend in terms of what we consider to be 'reasonable'.



Well, at least we've made some progress.

The only difficulty I have with what you just said here is that you're basically applying what you believe to know about our current spacetime configuration and just pushing that onto any other possible 'spacetime' configuration.

That's where we part ways.

I'm not prepared to restrict other possible forms of structure and/or information to the same things we believe to know about our current apparent situation.

Clearly this spacetime fabric appears to have evolved from a "Big Bang" into what it is today, and may continue to evolve into who-knows-what?

But that kind of linear time may itself be a temporal illusion.

Perhaps a structure or information that exists in some other form has no dependence on 'time' as well perceive time to be. And the whole idea that this information had to 'evolve' from a lesser state into a more complex state may be a totally misplaced concept.

All you're doing is assuming that since our spacetime universe appears to have evolved from an apparently non-conscious state of existence to a state where parts of it appear to have miraculously evolved into a state of awareness, that this should be true of any possible aspect of reality.

But where's the basis for that conclusion?

Moreover, where's the basis for ruling out that nothing else is even possible?

~~~~

I'm not suggesting that spirit "must exist" just because I can imagine scenarios under which it could exist.

All I'm doing is saying that it's totally false information for anyone to claim that such scenarios can be absolutely ruled out, and that this conclusion "must be accepted".

That's simply nothing more than someone's personal opinion. It doesn't hold water in the bigger picture. It represents nothing more than a demand that we must all think in the same limited scope of the person who is claiming to have such a "proof".

No such "proof" exists.

All that exists are people who, unlike Steven Weinberg, believe that the true nature of reality must satisfy their philosophical and/or theoretical desire to believe that their theories are right, thus making them happy.

Can you please strive to be a little more concise? It's getting a bit tedious to find every little fault in your argument. Especually since they are being repeated ad nauseum.

(February 17, 2012 at 6:48 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: I never claimed that it wouldn't be phenomenological. All I have ever claimed is that it wouldn't necessarily be restricted to the very limited picture of "phenomenon" that you are restricting your philosophy to.

If it is phenomenological, it is not independent of spacetime - whatever form of spacetime it may be.

(February 17, 2012 at 6:48 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: And besides, the argument for "The God of the Gaps" is actually a term that applies to creationists who argue against evolution based on the idea that there are 'gaps' in our understanding of evolution.

I totally agree that those kinds of arguments are totally unwarranted. Mainly because the 'gaps' in our knowledge of evolution are indeed small, and decrease daily. Evolution is basically proven beyond a reasonable doubt as far as I'm concerned.

So the "God of the Gaps" idea doesn't even apply to the concept of spirit that I'm talking about.

It applies to any concept that is presented as being possibly true simply based on absence of concrete knowledge on it. Also known as argumentum ad ignoratiam.

(February 17, 2012 at 6:48 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: Moreover, I'm not suggesting that just because we don't know everything that his means that a spiritual essence of reality must be true.

On the contrary, all I have ever claimed at any point is that it can't be ruled out.

You're argument is that you claim that it can be ruled-out.

And that is the only thing that I have ever been addressing with you.

And I stand firm in my position, un-wavered by your claims. Because your claim simply don't apply to the spiritual philosophies that I'm considering.

And as far as I'm concerned I've made a solid case for that already.

If there can be such a concept as "ruling out", then it can be ruled out.

The concept is simple. If there is such a thing as spiritual essence to reality, then the law of identity would not apply to it. In that case, it can be self-contradictory, i.t it can be something and not be it simultaneously. Which means, nothing can ever be "ruled-out" or "ruled-in" and all theories are equally true and false, since there is no objective reality to determine any truth by.

(February 17, 2012 at 6:48 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: See, there you go again attempting to use totally false erroneous arguments that can't be applied. This time your appealing to the truly futile semantic approach. Now you're going to try to argue that semantically these terms must necessarily be restricted to our previous classical intuitive views if they are to have any meaning to us at all.

No, I'm trying to show you using semantics that your argument is hollow. You said, "if one could imagine such an existence, it could possibly exist". But asking someone to imagine it is like asking them to imagine a circle that is not round or to imagine the color red that is blue.

(February 17, 2012 at 6:48 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: That is a totally empty argument devoid of anything but self-delusion.

Semantic arguments are quite useful against meaningless ideas.

(February 17, 2012 at 6:48 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: We are forced to use words from our existence vocabulary because those are the only terms that we understand. But our grossly limited semantic language cannot be used as an argument to place limitations on what the true nature of reality must be.

Semantics represents the current limit on the reach of of your mind. When humans identify a concept, they denote it with a word which form then on becomes its representation, irrespective of whether that concept is about something real or imagined. That is the limit of your knowledge and your imagination.

Any claim, made on anything beyond that, is making a claim beyond your reach. it doesn't matter whether the claim is about what is or what is possible, that claim is like attempting to move beyond your limit, while staying within it. I'm trying to show you that any such attempt is self-defeating.

(February 17, 2012 at 6:48 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: Concepts that couldn't possible be?

Concepts that couldn't possibly be independent of spacetime. I was hoping that was understood.

(February 17, 2012 at 6:48 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: There's the flaw in your extremely limited thinking right there.

We already have scientific reasons to believe that there already exists concepts and behaviors of "realty" that we may very well have extreme problems wrapping our limited minds around.

Steven Weinberg says it quite elegantly, "We have no guaranteed that the true nature of reality must be explainable in a way that makes theoretical physicists happy"

And the same is true of philosophers.

All you're basically doing is demanding that the true nature of reality must fit your personal limited way of thinking to make you happy. And therefore you can rule out anything that you deem would make you unhappy.

That's ridiculous.

Processing:
Irrelevant rambling: ignored.
Argumentum ad verecundiam: ignored.
Argumentum ad hominem: ignored.
Searching: Relevance to the argument made.
Found: none.

(February 17, 2012 at 6:48 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: That has always been my stance from the get-go. Although it's almost incorrect to call it a different kind of "space-time". It's simply a different structure altogether. Concepts such as space and time may not even be valid concepts in that other structure.

Either it is a different form of space-time or it is not. If it is not, then it cannot be phenomenological. Thus it cannot contain any consciousness.
Your attempts to subvert and equivocate between meanings of space-time and structure are irrelevant.

(February 17, 2012 at 6:48 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: So what could we even mean by structure you may ask?

Well, the existence of information period. The existence of information implies that there must be some for of structure even if the information itself is that structure. There are scientific reasons to believe that in the underlying quantum world that gives rise to what we call "spacetime", there must necessarily exist information.

And the existence of information implies some form of structure at some level.

So (based on our limited semantic terms) we can conclude that, if spirit exists, it must have some form of structure, but not necessarily in terms of space and time as we perceive it.

Maybe it's some other form that we can't even begin to comprehend. In fact, that precisely the premise or axiom that is at the heart of Eastern Mysticism. The axiom that whatever exists as the underlying mystical nature of reality is indeed, most likely beyond our ability to comprehend in terms of what we consider to be 'reasonable'.

There it is.

There is the crucial stage where you divorce yourself from science and teeter off to mystical irrationality. There is the subtle jump here, possible only by gross disregard for any semantics, that allows you to present irrational arguments seemingly supported by scientists.

Information is not the same as consciousness.

In layman's terms, the word information is intricately tied to consciousness. To a layman, information, without any consciousness there to "know" it, is meaningless. To him, words on a paper hold meaning if and only if there is a consciousness which is aware of them - otherwise, it is simply ink on paper. So when a person hears that scientists believe there is "information" at quantum level, they naturally assume that there must be consciousness at that level too, since without it, the concept of information is meaningless.

While, in fact, quantum information has nothing to do with any consciousness. It doesn't even mean the same thing that "information" means in everyday language. The scientific meaning of information (usually referred to as physical information, of which quantum information is a type), has nothing to do with the everyday meaning. In that context information simply means structure.

Do you get that? Information means structure and scientists use "information" instead of structure because the latter has strong spatio-temporal implications. Equivocating between the two meanings and making a fallacious jump so big as to find a reason for propounding irrational philosophy, is not something that even eastern mysticism is guilty of.

(February 17, 2012 at 6:48 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: Well, at least we've made some progress.

The only difficulty I have with what you just said here is that you're basically applying what you believe to know about our current spacetime configuration and just pushing that onto any other possible 'spacetime' configuration.

That's where we part ways.

I'm not prepared to restrict other possible forms of structure and/or information to the same things we believe to know about our current apparent situation.

Clearly this spacetime fabric appears to have evolved from a "Big Bang" into what it is today, and may continue to evolve into who-knows-what?

But that kind of linear time may itself be a temporal illusion.

Perhaps a structure or information that exists in some other form has no dependence on 'time' as well perceive time to be. And the whole idea that this information had to 'evolve' from a lesser state into a more complex state may be a totally misplaced concept.

All you're doing is assuming that since our spacetime universe appears to have evolved from an apparently non-conscious state of existence to a state where parts of it appear to have miraculously evolved into a state of awareness, that this should be true of any possible aspect of reality.

But where's the basis for that conclusion?

Moreover, where's the basis for ruling out that nothing else is even possible?

The basis is that 1) Structure - commonly referred to by scientists as information, has nothing to do with consciousness and 2) Within any structure that is not spatio-temporal, there is no consciousness possible.

(February 17, 2012 at 6:48 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: I'm not suggesting that spirit "must exist" just because I can imagine scenarios under which it could exist.

Actually, you can't.

(February 17, 2012 at 6:48 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: All I'm doing is saying that it's totally false information for anyone to claim that such scenarios can be absolutely ruled out, and that this conclusion "must be accepted".

No, this conclusion must be figured out on one's own. I cannot bear the burden of rationality on behalf of someone else.

(February 17, 2012 at 6:48 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: That's simply nothing more than someone's personal opinion. It doesn't hold water in the bigger picture. It represents nothing more than a demand that we must all think in the same limited scope of the person who is claiming to have such a "proof".

No such "proof" exists.

Just because you are incapable of understanding the argument does not mean that no proof exists.

(February 17, 2012 at 6:48 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: All that exists are people who, unlike Steven Weinberg, believe that the true nature of reality must satisfy their philosophical and/or theoretical desire to believe that their theories are right, thus making them happy.

Reality has not obligation to satisfy anyone's desires.

However, if your philosophy was correct, reality would have such an obligation. The hallmark of rationality is having desires in accordance with reality and the hallmark of irrationality is to desire something that has not basis in reality. Guess which one are you.

No one ever said it was. You clearly aren't even remotely paying attention. All you're doing it blowing empty hot-air into the wind. I had already made it perfectly clear that you can't even demand that the spacetime fabric we experience in our macro lives holds in the quantum world. The very concept of space and time as we know them may totally break down. So to even continue to use the term spacetime at that level is a total misunderstanding on your part.

In fact, why do you think that Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity are completely incompatible on that scale?

Neither the scientific nor the philosophical communities would support your asinine claim of holding an absolute proof that no possible concept of spirit can possibly exist.

This is entirely your own personal opinion and persona agenda. And you're not convincing anyone.

Well, at least you certainly aren't convincing me, if you're convinced anyone else that's a terrible shame that they fell for your personal nonsense.

You clearly aren't even comprehending our modern picture of the world.

Apparently you'll living in a retro-classical mindset of a Newtonian clockwork universe with a Spinozaian God.

You're trying to maintain Einstein's God who does not place dice.

Neil's Borh already told Einstein not to tell God what to do. Yet, you're still trying to demand such classical absoluteness. As it turns out Neil's borh was right. The theorems of John Stewart Bell, brought the question into the realm of science and science showed that Borh was right and Einstein was wrong.

The classical picture is forever dead, and can never be revived. Yet for your so-called 'proof' to hold you would need a Newtonian universe that rules out any other possible structures beyond that classical picture.

You're just not keeping up with the modern knowledge of reality.



Well, either you are a total ignoramus yourself, or again you're just not paying attention. There is nothing in my picture of spirituality that is dependent upon an absence of knowledge. My entire philosophical picture is based entirely on the modern knowledge.

Moreover, you clearly can't comprehend the simplest thing.

I'm not stating that spirit "must exist".

On the contrary all I'm stating is that it can't be ruled out.

That has been my only position at any point in our conversations, and it's been your passionate position that every imaginable concept of spirit has been firmly and undeniably "ruled-out", and you claim to have "proof" of this.

You have chosen to take the impossible and absurd position.

You're claim could never stand.

To begin with, you can't claim to know the true nature of reality well enough to even make such an outrageous statement to begin with. No respectable scientist would even pretend to have such knowledge.

Secondly, you're presuming to be able to rule out any and all spiritual proposals. Again, that's just a totally naive and absurd claim on your part.

All you're doing is looking at the human ape-like brain that exists in macro spacetime and assuming that consciousness equates to spirit. Then you are demanding that since a human's ape-like brain is dependent upon the fabric of spactime as we know it, this means that any, and all, concepts of a spiritual consciousness can therefore be ruled out completely.

That's about the lamest argument I've ever heard in my life, and it would indeed be laughed out of any symposium on physics or philosophy.

In fact, conversing with you is a total waste of time. Clearly you've deluded yourself into believing that you can rule out things on a whim just by making utterly stupid demands like you do.

If you can't see the problem with that, there truly is no reason to waste time conversing with you anymore.

Go ahead and believe that you can make outrageous conclusions to rule out possible realities.

But know, that you haven't even remotely come close to convincing me to buy into your grossly limited and archaic views. You missed your time. You're arguments might have held a little bit of clout back in the days of Newton and Spinoza. But in light of the knowledge of modern physics your stance is a complete joke. It has no merit at all.

(February 18, 2012 at 2:15 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: No one ever said it was.

You did. And are saying it again.

(February 18, 2012 at 2:15 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: You clearly aren't even remotely paying attention. All you're doing it blowing empty hot-air into the wind. I had already made it perfectly clear that you can't even demand that the spacetime fabric we experience in our macro lives holds in the quantum world. The very concept of space and time as we know them may totally break down. So to even continue to use the term spacetime at that level is a total misunderstanding on your part.

See, you are saying that spacetime cannot be applicable in any form at that level. Ergo, no consciousness.

(February 18, 2012 at 2:15 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: In fact, why do you think that Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity are completely incompatible on that scale?

Neither the scientific nor the philosophical communities would support your asinine claim of holding an absolute proof that no possible concept of spirit can possibly exist.

This is entirely your own personal opinion and persona agenda. And you're not convincing anyone.

Well, at least you certainly aren't convincing me, if you're convinced anyone else that's a terrible shame that they fell for your personal nonsense.

You clearly aren't even comprehending our modern picture of the world.

Apparently you'll living in a retro-classical mindset of a Newtonian clockwork universe with a Spinozaian God.

You're trying to maintain Einstein's God who does not place dice.

Neil's Borh already told Einstein not to tell God what to do. Yet, you're still trying to demand such classical absoluteness. As it turns out Neil's borh was right. The theorems of John Stewart Bell, brought the question into the realm of science and science showed that Borh was right and Einstein was wrong.

The classical picture is forever dead, and can never be revived. Yet for your so-called 'proof' to hold you would need a Newtonian universe that rules out any other possible structures beyond that classical picture.

You're just not keeping up with the modern knowledge of reality.

Irrelevant babbling ignored since none of the arguments even remotely address possibility of consciousness at quantum level.

(February 18, 2012 at 2:15 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: Well, either you are a total ignoramus yourself, or again you're just not paying attention.

Unlike you, I don't skip over arguments, I read an consider them all. Your problem is not that I don't pay attention, its that I pay too much. And because of that, I can pick out exactly what errors you make and attempt to hide by using walls upon walls of text.

(February 18, 2012 at 2:15 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: There is nothing in my picture of spirituality that is dependent upon an absence of knowledge.

Nothing in the picture. Your entire picture is built upon absence of knowledge. Your very first argument was that since there is no knowledge on the subject, it is okay to come up with a picture from imagination.

(February 18, 2012 at 2:15 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: My entire philosophical picture is based entirely on the modern knowledge.

I search in vain within your quotations by scientists for the word "spirit" or "consciousness".

(February 18, 2012 at 2:15 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: Moreover, you clearly can't comprehend the simplest thing.

I'm not stating that spirit "must exist".

On the contrary all I'm stating is that it can't be ruled out.

How is re-stating the subject of the discussion of any help?

(February 18, 2012 at 2:15 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: That has been my only position at any point in our conversations, and it's been your passionate position that every imaginable concept of spirit has been firmly and undeniably "ruled-out", and you claim to have "proof" of this.

No, not all. Just the concept you have imagined - that of a spirit as an essential component of reality.

(February 18, 2012 at 2:15 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: You have chosen to take the impossible and absurd position.

You're claim could never stand.

To begin with, you can't claim to know the true nature of reality well enough to even make such an outrageous statement to begin with. No respectable scientist would even pretend to have such knowledge.

So your position is "just because no one else would say it"...

(February 18, 2012 at 2:15 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: Secondly, you're presuming to be able to rule out any and all spiritual proposals.

No. Just yours.

(February 18, 2012 at 2:15 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: Again, that's just a totally naive and absurd claim on your part.

Not nearly as absurd as your contention.

(February 18, 2012 at 2:15 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: All you're doing is looking at the human ape-like brain that exists in macro spacetime and assuming that consciousness equates to spirit.

Changing the definition of spirit now, are we? We should add "moving the goalposts" to your long list of fallacies.

(February 18, 2012 at 2:15 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: Then you are demanding that since a human's ape-like brain is dependent upon the fabric of spactime as we know it, this means that any, and all, concepts of a spiritual consciousness can therefore be ruled out completely.

I've given you the opportunity to come up with a concept of consciousness that is independent of phenomenology and you have been unable to do so. Whenever faced with the question you immediately retreat. And then go back to saying the same thing.

(February 18, 2012 at 2:15 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: That's about the lamest argument I've ever heard in my life, and it would indeed be laughed out of any symposium on physics or philosophy.

Your hypothesis wouldn't even be let in.

(February 18, 2012 at 2:15 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: In fact, conversing with you is a total waste of time.

Agreed. Your time is better spent suing your parents for giving birth to you.

(February 18, 2012 at 2:15 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: Clearly you've deluded yourself into believing that you can rule out things on a whim just by making utterly stupid demands like you do.

Clearly, you are delusional.

(February 18, 2012 at 2:15 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: If you can't see the problem with that, there truly is no reason to waste time conversing with you anymore.

If you still can't see the irrationality of your hypothesis, then I'll keep showing it to you whenever it is presented.

(February 18, 2012 at 2:15 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: Go ahead and believe that you can make outrageous conclusions to rule out possible realities.

No, I can only rule out impossible realities, like the one you are suggesting.

(February 18, 2012 at 2:15 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: But know, that you haven't even remotely come close to convincing me to buy into your grossly limited and archaic views. You missed your time. You're arguments might have held a little bit of clout back in the days of Newton and Spinoza. But in light of the knowledge of modern physics your stance is a complete joke. It has no merit at all.

You are a complete joke. Your time passed in 1000 BCE. And while your views might have been accepted in ancient India, in a period of gross ignorance, today they would be laughed at by any halfway rational human being. Your pathetic attempts to disguise it as "science" are laughably obvious inspite of your attempts to hide it in walls upon walls of text. And the long (and probably still incomplete) list of logical fallacies you use to support your arguments goes something like this

Argumentum ad ignoratiam.
Argumentum ad verecundiam.
Argumentum ad hominem.
Argumentum verbosium.
Argumentum ad nauseam.
Equivocation
Fallacy of division.
Moving the goalposts.
Appeal to motive.

and the final one -
Pathetic fallacy (this one's central to your entire view - and its like it has been named just for your sake).