(November 20, 2013 at 9:27 pm)The Reality Salesman Wrote: I'll waste no time and concede that there's something I don't know in the interest of displaying intellectual honesty.

A noble concession. However, you do not seem to have any issue with believing in that which you cannot account for. You espouse naturalism and yet you cannot explain how natural laws can exist in accordance with this natural materialism.

Quote: Now, will you admit that within the Theist worldview, you cannot account for the existence of God without special pleading?

The existence of Yahweh is a necessary presupposition of the Christian worldview; natural laws are not a necessary presupposition of a materialist worldview.

Quote: If you are honest, your worldview is no more complete than mine, but I don't pretend to have answers that I don't have.

Sure it is! The existence of natural laws makes perfect sense in the context of my worldview; they apparently do not make any sense in yours. We both believe such laws exist, but apparently only I can account for them.

(November 20, 2013 at 9:30 pm)Esquilax Wrote: Did you know I created the universe? I did! I went back in time, in my (one use, destroyed upon return trip) time machine, and I created the universe, formatting the laws of it based upon my experiences of them while I was inside the universe. It's a stable time loop, dependent upon my existence, and since I used materials from the world to accomplish this, it's entirely consistent with materialism.

My goodness; tell me exactly how you used materials to create immaterial laws? Category errors abound!
Secondly, are you really going to concede that natural laws have to be the creation of an intelligent and creative entity? You’re beginning to sound like a theist.

(November 22, 2013 at 7:32 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: My goodness; tell me exactly how you used materials to create immaterial laws? Category errors abound!

And this is where the fun begins in this little game: Who are you to question the creator of the universe? You wouldn't understand my magnificent plan. It's too complex and ineffable for you. Etc etc, all the other theist arguments for why they can't explain the things that god does. They all apply here. Are you really stating that there's no possible point at the future in which devices for manipulating natural laws can exist? Who's to say I didn't build two time machines and use one to go forward and obtain machinery to go back and manipulate the natural laws into their current state.

Quote:Secondly, are you really going to concede that natural laws have to be the creation of an intelligent and creative entity? You’re beginning to sound like a theist.

No, and I think we both understand that my solution there was an invented one. That was the point: accounting for something is not the same as having the correct position, and being unable to account for something does not mean that position is wrong. I just made something up, off the top of my head, that accounts for natural laws, but we both understand that this is incorrect.

It's the same with you and god: you proudly state that you can account for things, as though that's a problem for everyone else. But you can explain anything with magic, it doesn't mean you're right. Evidence will prove that; don't pretend this "I can account for things!" argument actually addresses anything pertinent.

Furthermore, you use god as an explanation, but god explains nothing, because "god did it" isn't an answer. You say you can account for the natural laws, but accounting for things requires an explanation for how they occur, not merely an assertion of a cause. If I'm asked to account for how hotdogs are made, answering "meat," means I've failed.

And when you top that by adding that you require presuppositions to make this worldview work... come on, Stat. How can you possibly present such an argument seriously?

The special pleading is on time as expected "necessary presupposition"? Indeed. To continue pretending to have answers you don't have, that is. If you get to arbitrarily invoke a primitive [edit out prehistoric] Jewish Zombie, you don't get to dismiss Esquilax as an explanation either. You got on that horse, son. You gotta ride it.

(November 20, 2013 at 8:50 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Scientific laws are descriptive not normative.

And exactly how did you go from descriptive to plugging in a cosmic prescriber?

I cannot prove unequivocally that God exists.

So, now what?

(November 26, 2013 at 4:52 am)GodsRevolt Wrote: I cannot prove unequivocally that God exists.

So, now what?

Stop trying to legislate laws based on your religion and stop buttfucking alter boys. Stop trying to make us live our lives based on an ideology that you cannot prove to be good and true.

(November 22, 2013 at 10:40 pm)Esquilax Wrote: And this is where the fun begins in this little game: Who are you to question the creator of the universe? You wouldn't understand my magnificent plan. It's too complex and ineffable for you. Etc etc, all the other theist arguments for why they can't explain the things that god does. They all apply here. Are you really stating that there's no possible point at the future in which devices for manipulating natural laws can exist? Who's to say I didn't build two time machines and use one to go forward and obtain machinery to go back and manipulate the natural laws into their current state.

So you are conceding that natural laws require a creator? They cannot arise through purely natural unintelligent means? I do not believe this game is going as you initially planned because it is only proving my point (unless of course that is what you were trying to do).

Quote: That was the point: accounting for something is not the same as having the correct position,

Sure it is if it is done in a logically consistent manner; you did not account for natural laws because you committed a category error which means your attempt at accounting for such laws was irrational. No such category error exists within the Christian conceptual scheme.

Quote: and being unable to account for something does not mean that position is wrong.

Yes it does, if position A asserts B and B is true but B cannot exist if position A is true then position A is false.

Quote: I just made something up, off the top of my head, that accounts for natural laws, but we both understand that this is incorrect.

It did not account for natural laws though, that is the point.

Quote: you proudly state that you can account for things, as though that's a problem for everyone else.

It is a problem for everyone else.

Quote: But you can explain anything with magic, it doesn't mean you're right.

I did not say anything about magic.

Quote: Evidence will prove that; don't pretend this "I can account for things!" argument actually addresses anything pertinent.

You cannot even account for the notion of evidence if God did not exist. That is the entire point, you are assuming Christian theism is true by questioning Christian theism; your position is completely irrational.

Quote: …because "god did it" isn't an answer.

According to whom?

Quote: You say you can account for the natural laws, but accounting for things requires an explanation for how they occur, not merely an assertion of a cause.

According to whom?

Quote: If I'm asked to account for how hotdogs are made, answering "meat," means I've failed.

That’s a fallacious analogy. “Where do hotdogs come from?” “People make them.”- is a perfectly legitimate answer.

Quote: And when you top that by adding that you require presuppositions to make this worldview work... come on, Stat. How can you possibly present such an argument seriously?

All worldviews require axioms; that’s basic epistemology. The only difference between you and me is that my presuppositions make sense of reality while yours contradict it.

I will ask again, how can you make sense of immaterial natural laws in a purely material and unguided Universe?

(November 22, 2013 at 11:56 pm)The Reality Salesman Wrote: The special pleading is on time as expected "necessary presupposition"? Indeed. To continue pretending to have answers you don't have, that is. If you get to arbitrarily invoke a primitive [edit out prehistoric] Jewish Zombie, you don't get to dismiss Esquilax as an explanation either. You got on that horse, son. You gotta ride it.

You’re big into irrational question-begging epithets aren’t you? I dismissed Esquilax’s explanation because he was committing a category error and was invoking an explanation that contradicted his espoused conceptual scheme. I will ask you again, can you make sense of immaterial natural laws in a manner that is consistent with your espoused materialism?

(November 23, 2013 at 10:27 am)The Reality Salesman Wrote: And exactly how did you go from descriptive to plugging in a cosmic prescriber?

Simple, there must be a governing agent causing material to behave in a manner that makes it possible to use such descriptions.

(November 26, 2013 at 5:21 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Simple, there must be a governing agent causing material to behave in a manner that makes it possible to use such descriptions.

Oh it's simple alright. But, just because you say it "must" be true, doesn't get us any closer to establishing whether or not you are right. What you've offered is an intellectual sink-hole. The question remains.

---

(November 26, 2013 at 5:21 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: I will ask you again, can you make sense of immaterial natural laws in a manner that is consistent with your espoused materialism?

I've already told you, I don't know. And it's irrelevant with regards to establishing the validity of your claim. I can't account for descriptive laws anymore than you can account for God. You've swapped one incomplete worldview for another, and are content in using God as your pacifier for your lack of knowledge. It seems a bit more honest to admit that you don't know, rather than go on pleading for exceptions for the very thing you're trying to avoid, and pretend to know things that you clearly do not. You're human, get used to being ignorant, it comes with the territory. You don't have all the answers, and insisting that you're right without evidence doesn't change my mind about you. Not that you are trying or care. But, then why would you continue this conversation if you didn't?

You claim that religious people are deceived about whether a god . So you are pretty sure that there is no God . You're pretty sure because you have conclusive evidences can not be denied by anyone .

(November 27, 2013 at 8:56 am)Nineteen Wrote: You claim that religious people are deceived about whether a god . So you are pretty sure that there is no God . You're pretty sure because you have conclusive evidences can not be denied by anyone .

I'm having a hard time understanding what you've wrote. So, correct me if I've misinterpreted you. It seems like you're saying:

I have claimed that religious people are decieved when they believe in God. I don't remember saying that, can you quote me? (I try not to use blanketing statements containing words like "all", and refrain from directing my thoughts toward total groups such as "religious people". I prefer to direct my statements and questions to the individual in the conversation and not presume to know exactly what they think. In this case, I'm talking to you. Without knowing what you believe, it would be wildly unfair of me to assume that you are decieved. You may have evidence for God that is not available to me. I am open to such evidence, and while I have my doubts, I would be wildly fascenated by any evidence presented in favor of God.)

Secondly,it seems as though you have incorrectly assumed something about my views. Again, if I've misunderstood, please correct me. But, it seems like you are under the impression that I claim to have evidence to support my lack of belief in God. Did I give you the impression that such a thing was necessary to hold a negative position toward a belief? Or, is this something you think is required in order to justify not believing in a proposition that is presented? Explain...