(December 4, 2013 at 7:32 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: So you take the most symbol laden book and take it literally. You must be a total idiot.

So, does anybody remember that episode of South Park where the kids wrote a book made of nothing but awful, disgusting material, merely for the sake of doing so, and all the adults took it to be some amazing masterpiece just by reading too much into it, when in actuality there was nothing deep or meaningful there?

Yeah, whenever a christian baselessly asserts that there's a whole bunch of symbolism in his magic book, I'm reminded of that episode.

(December 3, 2013 at 9:29 pm)Esquilax Wrote: I did a couple pages back, with Floontium the eternal material. This actually plays into my main point, which is that you can make up any damn thing you want. Handwaving and just-so stories do not reality make.

And as I have already pointed out, you did not actually account for such laws because your explanation required the existence of such laws in order to be viable.

Quote:And just what is contradictory about the idea that the laws of nature can be changed, especially since it's the cornerstone of both your creation account and miracle claims? Don't just assert things, Stat: demonstrate them. Fact is, we already have the technological means to alter or discard some laws of nature; a plane falling at a certain speed will temporarily counteract gravity, for one. You're just applying whatever labels you want to things, in the hopes that your assertions will just be accepted without question.

Your explanation involved time travel. Time travel cannot exist or ever exist because it would make it so that time travel was possible and not possible at the same point in time and in the same sense thus violating the law of non-contradiction. It would also make it so that the laws of nature existed and did not exist prior to the invention of time travel also violating the law of non-contradiction. God doing something for special significance in history does not violate the law of non-contradiction. Lastly, a plane flying does not change the laws of nature any, it merely uses them to achieve a desired result.

Quote:Classic argument from ignorance for Stat.

Esquilax has to believe that pigs can fly in order for his materialism to be viable. Check mate.

Quote: There's no need to go further than that, or to attach a definite label at all, because- and this may come as a shock to you, Stat- your experience of the world is not all that there is to reality. This "I haven't seen it, and therefore it cannot possibly exist at any point," attitude of yours is childish, reminiscent of a baby's object impermanence, and I will not take part in it.

We do have to take it further than that because Christian Theists have already succeeded where you have failed. Your rejection of our position and adherence to your own position despite the former succeeding where the latter has failed over and over again is nothing more than blind faith. Pigs cannot fly and materialism cannot account for the laws of nature; denying either of these facts soley upon blind faith is irrational.

Quote:Sure, if the only thing you're willing to entertain is your misrepresentation of my position.

It’s difficult to accurately represent a position that is constantly changing.

Quote:
Which misses the point entirely, again.

The point is that your silly explanation was still illogical so it was not in any way analogous to my explanation.

Quote:Until you can demonstrate that your account of things has any basis in reality, all you have is a just so story. A fairytale.

No, I have a view of reality that succeeds where yours has failed. I will take that any day.

Quote:
Because magic (miracles, godpowers, whatever you want to call it) can be used to explain anything. Doesn't mean it's real.

That’s incorrect. If my conceptual scheme is logically consistent-and if any part of it is true (i.e. laws of nature exist) then the entire conceptual scheme has to be true.

Quote:Every other god accounts for it all just as well as yours does. Made up gods do too.

Give me an example and I will show you why you are wrong.

Quote: My time travel one does as well, regardless of your by fiat assertion that it can't because you don't find it compelling.

You’re right, I do not find illogical arguments compelling.

Quote: Floontium accounts for it all perfectly well.

No because it is material and thus would be subject to the laws of nature.

Quote: and to be clear, the laws of nature only need to be accounted for in a creationist worldview; in a naturalist one, it's perfectly fine to say that they just worked out this way,

Perfectly fine according to whom? You’re making up rules of reasoning again I see. Secondly, I guess God just exists. That is just the way it is and it is exactly what we expected. Fair is fair.

Quote: that the process was unguided, possibly random or the result of a cascading series of consequences,

What process?

Quote: because in a world without a god, there was no goal involved. It just shook out this way, and that's not a problem, because it's exactly what we'd expect.

What is exactly what you would expect? Why would you expect regularity in natural laws and not irregularity?

Quote: There: I just accounted for the laws of nature under materialism, at least as a possibility.

I thought you said you did not need to account for them? You need to get on the same page with yourself. You’re travelling down the exact path I was hoping you would, so by all means continue down it.

Quote:Don't presume to tell me what I think, Statler.

I should not assume that your writings are an accurate representation of your thoughts? Yikes.

Quote:
Only when you demonstrate where your god came from.

I never claimed to only believe in that which I can demonstrate. So you do not only believe in that which you can demonstrate? Or you do? How many of you are there?

Quote: Besides, I already noted that up above.

Arbitrarily asserting that you are immune to laws of proper reasoning does not account for or demonstrate anything.

Quote:How do you know mine does? I'm interested in how you know the future of all human technology and discovery, Stat.

I do not, nor do I need to; I only need to know that the law of non-contradiction is immutable.

Quote:We are discussing that, yes: and as usual, you are profoundly wrong at every turn, surviving only on the same smug back patting I called Chad on earlier.

As you engage in your own smug back patting, how hypocritical of you.

Quote:Where's the evidence that a god was involved? [/qote]

He says he was.

[quote] Because, you know, that would be the justification for believing that anything other than natural processes were involved; see, nature has an advantage, in that it's demonstrable already. How can you demonstrate your god?

As you have helped to demonstrate, my god must exist in order for us to know anything at all. Just look at the logical absurdities, faith in the future, and intellectual laziness you have had to resort to in order to defend His non-existence.

Quote:No, me saying magic is to make fun of you, but I think we all know what miraculous thing I'm referring to.

You can make fun of me all you like but I am not the one who believes that pigs really can fly we just have not seen one do it yet.

Quote:
And again, you resort to a strawman. My position is that one ought not to categorically rule out the existence of a thing based solely on what we know now: we are wise to recognize that we don't yet know everything. Similarly, we are also unjustified in believing in something- like gods- without evidence for it. This is a special trick that rational people can do, called "keeping an open mind."

If a person is not justified in believing in gods without evidence (I have proof for what I believe) then you are not justified in believing that materialism will ever account for the laws of nature. Fair is fair.

Quote:
So, even if that wasn't an argument from ignorance all over, you've just asserted that mine is wrong, again. You are acting like a toddler, Stat.

Logical negation is not an argument from ignorance; it is used all the time in proper logic. Secondly, you are in fact wrong because your view of reality cannot make sense of the reality we all observe.

Quote:
If you can't show it, you don't know it, Stat.

Unless He who knows everything and who cannot lie tells me, then I can know it for certain. Your empiricism is self-refuting by the way.

Quote:
My time travel scenario, to which your only response so far is to proclaim it illogical, as if merely saying so makes it so.

I assumed that you could see the obvious logical problems in such a position. I will not make that mistake again.

Quote:
So, fallacy detection: "material things cannot alter natural laws," is an argument from ignorance, aside from being flatly wrong (black holes are made of material things, initially.)

Straw-man alert. Black holes are still subject to natural laws.

P1) All matter is subject to laws of nature.
P2) Floontium is material
C) Therefore Floontium is subject to laws of nature

Quote: Second of all, you're ignorant of Floontium: it's capable of suspending and generating natural laws. That's where they come from. They're stable because only Floontium can generate new ones, and all the Floontium in the universe has been expended in creating the initial set.

So it’s immaterial now?

Quote:I have not once used them, mainly because I have not once even proclaimed anything as true, without being tongue in cheek about them.

Materialism can account for the laws of nature, we just have not found the answer yet. Sound familiar?

Quote: Don't mistake your inability to comprehend my position as some kind of fallacious argument, Stat.

Do not fault me for being unable to comprehend the incomprehensible. That is a reflection upon the inadequacy of your position, not upon me in any way.

(December 4, 2013 at 9:54 am)The Reality Salesman Wrote: The laws are contingent on us, and our pursuit of understanding, and are a product of such.

Really? So if we suddenly stipulated that all electrons would attract to one another rather than repel one another it would happen? Additionally, if natural laws are dependent upon us, then are you asserting that no natural laws existed prior to Humans?

Quote: The idea of such an entity as you describe is itself only sustainable so long as our understanding of the natural universe, and the "laws" we use to describe it remain consistent. The moment our understanding changes, so then will your description of God.

Not at all, my understanding of natural laws pertains to the material not the immaterial.

Quote: This is historically true. Your defense of your hypothesis of God is a product of scientific understanding, and it is convincing to you, only because to you, it seems to fill the gaps of science's understanding.

This is also factually incorrect, the sufficiency of God as a doctrine significantly predates modern science.

Quote: But just like many others have failed to nail down God's hiding place, so have you.

The blind often think others are hiding when they are really out in the open.

Quote: Your entire defense of God hinges on laws that you think are absolute because you think science says so.

The laws of nature are not absolute, they are regular because God says so. Science does not say anything, that is reification.

Quote: You then see this as an opportunity to seize a gap of ignorance, and clumsily cram God into it.

No I see it as a classic instance of the materialist borrowing what can only be true under Christian Theism and using it to try and argue against Christian Theism.

Quote: I imagine you very much like the idea of an "absolute anything" that is supported by scientific discovery because you think this "anything" can be attributed to the God of your creation so long as nobody else has a better solution.

Nobody else even has a solution, much less a better one.

Quote: You mistakingly assume that these descriptive rules that the human mind has established are a "thing" at all, and you have mistaken them for objects that exists apart from a reflective mind giving them a purpose.

I have clearly stated numerous times that the laws of nature are descriptive and not normative. What you are failing to make sense of is why we can make such descriptions. Why do all electrons repel one another? Why is the sum total magnetic flux through any Gaussian surface always zero? And so on…

Quote: The universe doesn't care about these "laws" that we use to describe it. The universe behaves, and we try to understand it by establishing what we think are norms.

All you are doing is restating the problem. What causes the Universe to “behave” in that regular and predictable manner?

Quote: These norms are revisable and are not absolute as you desperately hope we will concede them to be.

I never said they are absolute; God has altered them from time to time in particular instances throughout redemptive history. However, what you are referring to is our understanding of the laws of nature changing, not the actual laws themselves changing. The relativistic effects of motion existed prior to Einstein and the 20th Century.

Quote: But these "laws" are helpful to us as general rules of understanding. They're not at all absolute because they are tools that we create to understand, they are not given to us by a celestial entity as you seem to think.

I never said they were given to us. I really wish you would accurately depict my position. God causes matter to behave in a regular and predictable manner thus making it possible for us to use such descriptive terms.

Quote: Science has shown us that the laws you claim exclusive rights to are not at all absolute when we look at the material world on the molecular level. Particles, (matter) violate these "laws" that we've created constantly. Quantum randomness and entanglement are just two examples. But all of these things exist naturally in our material world. Invoking a God gets us no closer to understanding anything. It's a cognitive sinkhole.

Essentially your answer is, “Well that’s just the way it is”? That’s not good enough, I am sorry. If you are going to assert that such regularity exists and will continue to exist then you are going to have to justify this assertion. I have justification for this belief, you have none.

(December 4, 2013 at 7:43 pm)The Reality Salesman Wrote: It's only symbology to those that insist on trying to make sense of what is obviously no more than blatant primitive absurdities.

Obviously you have never read Revelation. John clearly states that what he is shown is symbolic in nature (Revelation 1). Biblical literalism does not mean what you think it means. It only means that the reader interprets the passage in accordance to its literary style. Being an apocalyptic book (much like Daniel), Revelation should be interpreted according to that literary style.

Quote: I wouldn't be surprised to find an apologist of Homer making similar utterances, such as yours, directed at the lucid interpretations of those who doubt the theological claims written in The Odyssey. Idiots indeed.

I would be surprised to find that.

(December 4, 2013 at 9:54 am)The Reality Salesman Wrote: The laws are contingent on us, and our pursuit of understanding, and are a product of such.

(December 12, 2013 at 6:12 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Really? So if we suddenly stipulated that all electrons would attract to one another rather than repel one another it would happen? Additionally, if natural laws are dependent upon us, then are you asserting that no natural laws existed prior to Humans?

No. You've misunderstood what I said. The concept of "laws" at all is contingent upon our mind possessing the ability to reflect and pursue understanding. I guess I wasn't as clear as I thought.

The universe exists, and it operates. Absent a mind capable of inquiry operating within it, the universe would still operate. Enter a mind capable of inquiry, and the usage of concepts such as "laws" is given a purpose as a means to describe it to a now existing describer. That purpose is to expand the level of inquiry through more understanding within the now existing vessel that possesses a thirst to understand and describe. These "laws", are as we perceive them, and are a viable concept insofar as there is a being with the desire and ability to perceive. I agree, they are in no way absolute, insofar as we are not in a position to know whether or not they are. Humor me for a moment, and just pretend as though you may not have interpreted the exact message I was trying to convey. Chalk it up to a poor explanation on my part.

(December 12, 2013 at 6:12 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Not at all, my understanding of natural laws pertains to the material not the immaterial.

I missed where you established that anything immaterial exists at all. We'll have to come back to this one.

(December 4, 2013 at 9:54 am)The Reality Salesman Wrote: This is historically true. Your defense of your hypothesis of God is a product of scientific understanding, and it is convincing to you, only because to you, it seems to fill the gaps of science's understanding.

(December 12, 2013 at 6:12 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: This is also factually incorrect, the sufficiency of God as a doctrine significantly predates modern science.

That's just verbal behavior, and it's not consistent with your defense tactics. I don't think you're being very sincere by making this sort of response. Your defense of God has not been biblical in anyway, other than choosing to assign your faith to a Character contained in it. Where in the bible does it say anything about immaterial? Where does it say that the source of logical absolutes is a gift from the biblical God? St. Augustine gave you the one about the immaterial, and he got that from his cherry-picking of Aristotle if I'm not mistaken. The defense and description of your God has been evolving over time. The Bible exists, but a literal interpretation cannot be used to logically defend it. This results in the types of defenses that you are using around here.

(December 4, 2013 at 9:54 am)The Reality Salesman Wrote: But just like many others have failed to nail down God's hiding place, so have you.

(December 12, 2013 at 6:12 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: The blind often think others are hiding when they are really out in the open.

That's a deepity, and you missed the point entirely. Every theist defends a God they believe exists. They insist that nonbelievers have just not found him (he's hiding). Do you think that the blind are oblivious to the fact that they do not possess the sense of sight? Do the blind recognize that there are others who exist, and of them there are those who do not suffer from the same disability? If you're telling me that you possess an ability that I do not have, and it is this ability that allows you to know things that I could not comprehend, then unlike the blind man, I certainly don't recognize such a disability, and you remain convinced that something is hiding without knowing whether or not it actually exists. If a claim were made about a black cat living in a dark room, and a scientist was appointed to investigate the validity of the claim, the scientist would go in recognizing that there's a chance the claim was wrong, and there is no cat. YOU, on the other hand, just believe the cat exists, and are completely find pretending to know it is true. Which is exactly what you are doing without having any evidence to support the claim. You are sure, and you have no evidence. An interesting approach to examining reality. I also find it interesting that this approach dovetails your feelings toward my recognizing universal regularities without knowing exactly why I perceive them as such.



You have no basis for what you consider reality, and what you discount as being fantasy. The central and most cherished belief in your life is indistinguishable from fantasy. It has the same characteristics as a delusion. To defend it requires an application of logic, but logic fails you. Your only defense is a baseless fiat supported by your own assertion that in order to apply logic, you must be able to confirm it's source! But wait, it gets better...you claim to have the source via the special plea that invokes a celestial entity responsible for the very thing it cannot support! Logical consistency! I couldn't have painted you into a more irrational corner by making this stuff up myself. I doff my hat to you, Sir Waldorf, Champion of Delusion.

(December 12, 2013 at 6:12 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: This is also factually incorrect, the sufficiency of God as a doctrine significantly predates modern science.

Then why do you not use the doctrine alone to establish validity to your claims? Why do you resort to statements such as...

(December 12, 2013 at 6:12 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: The laws of nature are not absolute, they are regular because God says so.

Where the hell is this written in your doctrine?

(December 12, 2013 at 6:12 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: No I see it as a classic instance of the materialist borrowing what can only be true under Christian Theism and using it to try and argue against Christian Theism.

Really? Site the scripture that says God is immaterial. Show where it says you must believe in God to justify being a conscious being capable of reflection. This sounds like an Ad Hominem to me. Conversely, If I were a Nazi, and I were giving an argument against racism, would my argument be invalid simply because I am a Nazi? Hmm?

Quote: I imagine you very much like the idea of an "absolute anything" that is supported by scientific discovery because you think this "anything" can be attributed to the God of your creation so long as nobody else has a better solution.

(December 12, 2013 at 6:12 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Nobody else even has a solution, much less a better one.

And you think that this makes yours true? So, your belief, that has zero evidence is true because I don't have an alternative due to a lack of evidence? This makes sense to you?

(December 12, 2013 at 6:12 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: I have clearly stated numerous times that the laws of nature are descriptive and not normative. What you are failing to make sense of is why we can make such descriptions. Why do all electrons repel one another? Why is the sum total magnetic flux through any Gaussian surface always zero? And so on…

Because we exist and have the capacity for speculation. You fall victim to your previous claims of the universal laws NOT being absolute. To US, electrons always repel one another, and so that's how we describe our perspective. Believing it's true because God makes it so, gets us no closer to understanding whether or not it's ABSOLUTELY true. It's a DESCRIPTION BY US. Absent us, the description and the word itself becomes obsolete. The use of descriptions is contingent upon a describer. Your contention is that a describer is contingent upon a prescriber. You have yet to show anything that makes this anything but a non sequitur.



I'm done. The rest of your response can be dismantled using what I've already said. Consider listening to what I write, and not so much waiting for a chance to type a response. A productive argument depends on such an approach.

(November 18, 2013 at 4:48 pm)The Reality Salesman Wrote: In recent conversations with a few of our resident Theists, I've been asking them a question that has yet to be answered.

How do you know you are not delusional?

I can see how somebody would find this to be a question intended to offend. Theists are convinced that the feelings they derive from their belief confirm the truth of the God they associate them with, and so to them, of course it's not a delusion.

They feel it in their hearts, and their mind backs it up. It all falls in line with exactly what they've been told to expect. All one has to do is expel all doubt and give in to the truth of their God, and others would experience what they experience. (coincidentally, this would be true for any God claim). The fact that so many others make exclusive and yet incompatible claims makes no difference. The others must be mistaken because the convinced Theist needs only to know what they feel personally about their God to know that they are right, and the others are wrong. Their subjective experience of the belief they hold in God could not allow them to misconstrue the truth.

But the question remains...How do they know they're not delusional? How can they trust what they've attributed to this personal experience that creates an unwavering conviction? I saw this video today and a creepy feeling came over me. I recommend it to Theists and Atheists alike. It's provides some interesting insight on the mind of the believer. As usual, I look forward to reading everyone's feedback. See ya around the forums!

And yet, the same people would say 'there is only one way to God', or some other thing, as though only they have the right one. They often fail to recognize just how much of a part their personal perspectives play in shaping what they specifically believe, just like everyone else's do.

To be honest, the only thing I know about religion is that the evidence for good-will as being a better, more beneficial human pursuit than ill-will and lack of conscience is staggering.

So, anything that totally promotes that is probably the best form of religion there is. I'd say that people with that selfless mindset are the ones with conviction that's merited, if only for the results it creates.

That's true. Buddhism is the closest thing to that.

(December 14, 2013 at 1:07 am)The Reality Salesman Wrote: No. You've misunderstood what I said. The concept of "laws" at all is contingent upon our mind possessing the ability to reflect and pursue understanding. I guess I wasn't as clear as I thought.

This is not what we are talking about. I am asking you how you can account for the fact that all electrons repel one another and other such regularities (what we call laws) in a purely material and unguided Universe.

Quote: Absent a mind capable of inquiry operating within it, the universe would still operate.

Sure, but why? What’s causing it to do so?

Quote: Humor me for a moment, and just pretend as though you may not have interpreted the exact message I was trying to convey. Chalk it up to a poor explanation on my part.

I understand what you are saying; I just do not see how it is relevant. It does not do anything to explain why such regularities exist in the Universe.

Quote: I missed where you established that anything immaterial exists at all. We'll have to come back to this one.

Sure. Even though you claim that you are done.

Quote: Where in the bible does it say anything about immaterial?

John 4 says God is a spirit-spirits are immaterial. Not only this but God is eternal (Revelation 4), omnipresent (Kings 8), and immutable (Hebrews 6) which are not properties matter possesses.

Quote: Where does it say that the source of logical absolutes is a gift from the biblical God?

Let’s stay on topic. We are talking about natural regularities (laws) not logical absolutes. Genesis 8 says God is responsible for such regularities.

Quote: The defense and description of your God has been evolving over time.

No it hasn’t.

Quote: The Bible exists, but a literal interpretation cannot be used to logically defend it.

That’s quite the assertion; do you have anything to actually back it up?

Quote: Do you think that the blind are oblivious to the fact that they do not possess the sense of sight?

In a way no, they actively suppress the truth.

Quote: If you're telling me that you possess an ability that I do not have, and it is this ability that allows you to know things that I could not comprehend, then unlike the blind man, I certainly don't recognize such a disability, and you remain convinced that something is hiding without knowing whether or not it actually exists.

Whether or not a blind person knows or believes they are blind seems irrelevant to me. God is not hiding, and I know He exists.

Quote: If a claim were made about a black cat living in a dark room, and a scientist was appointed to investigate the validity of the claim, the scientist would go in recognizing that there's a chance the claim was wrong, and there is no cat. YOU, on the other hand, just believe the cat exists, and are completely find pretending to know it is true.

I have no idea why atheists always choose such ridiculous analogies. God is not some material creature hiding from our searches. His very existence makes such searches possible; therefore it is absurd to pretend anyone does not know He exists. It’d be like someone running around questioning whether their mind exists or not; if it did not they would not be able to engage in such an inquiry.

Quote: Which is exactly what you are doing without having any evidence to support the claim.

The very notion of evidence assumes God exists. That’s my entire point.

Quote: You are sure, and you have no evidence. An interesting approach to examining reality. I also find it interesting that this approach dovetails your feelings toward my recognizing universal regularities without knowing exactly why I perceive them as such.

Such regularities make no sense without Yahweh.

Quote: You have no basis for what you consider reality, and what you discount as being fantasy. The central and most cherished belief in your life is indistinguishable from fantasy.

On the contrary, if God did not exist it would be impossible to distinguish between accurate perception and deception.

Quote: It has the same characteristics as a delusion. To defend it requires an application of logic, but logic fails you. Your only defense is a baseless fiat supported by your own assertion that in order to apply logic, you must be able to confirm it's source!

We’re talking about natural laws not logic; I have no idea why you keep missing that.

Quote: But wait, it gets better...you claim to have the source via the special plea that invokes a celestial entity responsible for the very thing it cannot support! Logical consistency! I couldn't have painted you into a more irrational corner by making this stuff up myself. I doff my hat to you, Sir Waldorf, Champion of Delusion.

So you completely misrepresent or miscomprehend the entire discussion and then claim victory? That sounds about right. Again, we can talk about logic at another time if you’d like but right now we are talking about natural laws. You have done nothing to explain why such regularities exist in a purely material Universe.

Quote: Then why do you not use the doctrine alone to establish validity to your claims? Why do you resort to statements such as...

(December 12, 2013 at 6:12 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: The laws of nature are not absolute, they are regular because God says so.

I am merely poking holes in your view of reality and pointing out the fact that mine does not possess such shortcomings. It’s a very effective approach.

Quote: Really?

Yes really.

Quote: Site the scripture that says God is immaterial.

You mean cite? I already gave you this above.

Quote: Show where it says you must believe in God to justify being a conscious being capable of reflection.

Romans 1 and Proverbs 9. Have you ever even read the Bible?

Quote: This sounds like an Ad Hominem to me. Conversely, If I were a Nazi, and I were giving an argument against racism, would my argument be invalid simply because I am a Nazi? Hmm?

Of course not, but only because the Nazi’s espoused view of reality is false. Likewise, the only reason you can argue for regularities in Nature is because your materialism is false. You’re just inconsistent, that’s all.

Quote: And you think that this makes yours true?

It does, If A or B, Not B, then A.

Quote: So, your belief, that has zero evidence is true because I don't have an alternative due to a lack of evidence? This makes sense to you?

No, your misrepresentation of my argument makes no sense to me. We both espouse “A” and yet “A” can only exist if my view of reality is true, therefore we both have to agree that my view of reality is true. By rejecting my view of reality and yet continuing to espouse “A” you are being irrational.

Quote: Because we exist and have the capacity for speculation.

Again, you are saying that if we did not exist electrons would cease to repel one another?

Quote: You fall victim to your previous claims of the universal laws NOT being absolute. To US, electrons always repel one another, and so that's how we describe our perspective.

Electrons do not always repel one another?

Quote: Believing it's true because God makes it so, gets us no closer to understanding whether or not it's ABSOLUTELY true. It's a DESCRIPTION BY US.

It’s the correct answer. The fact that it completely contradicts your espoused materialism is not my problem.

Quote: Absent us, the description and the word itself becomes obsolete. The use of descriptions is contingent upon a describer. Your contention is that a describer is contingent upon a prescriber. You have yet to show anything that makes this anything but a non sequitur.

Are you really going to argue that electrons did not repel one another prior to Humans? That seems to be what you are suggesting.

Quote: I'm done. The rest of your response can be dismantled using what I've already said.

That Humans have to exist in order for electrons to repel one another? That makes a lot of sense.

Quote: Consider listening to what I write, and not so much waiting for a chance to type a response. A productive argument depends on such an approach.

You’d be wise to heed your own advice.

(December 14, 2013 at 1:46 am)Medi Wrote: And yet, the same people would say 'there is only one way to God', or some other thing, as though only they have the right one.

The law of non-contradiction indicates that this is the case.

Quote: To be honest, the only thing I know about religion is that the evidence for good-will as being a better, more beneficial human pursuit than ill-will and lack of conscience is staggering.

We should be selfless because it makes things better for everyone? So our reasons for being selfless are selfish?

Using a claim (the Bible) to defend another claim (i.e. that there's a god and that it's a he and yet immaterial) is circular reasoning as well as psychobabble. Saying things like "I know he exists" goes to show how far the delusion has gone. You try to tell us that we believe in a god whether or not we know it, and, believe it or not, that makes you a liar as well as guilty of misrepresenting our positions, even if it is your conviction based on a big, fat claim/lie (the Bible). Keep that particular belief to yourself because you can't possibly know what is in our minds. You have asked us in the past to be mindful about accurately portraying your position; please be courteous and do the same for us.

---

To caveat that, in case you were confused, we don't tell you what you do and don't believe, so don't try that bullshit on us.

Stat, come on, man!
Double standards and bare assertions from you?!

How low the mighty have fallen....

(December 17, 2013 at 6:12 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: This is not what we are talking about. I am asking you how you can account for the fact that all electrons repel one another and other such regularities (what we call laws) in a purely material and unguided Universe.

Each electron behaves like an electron.
They all have at least one thing that sets them apart from all other electrons, be it, spin, position, velocity, energy, etc...

(December 17, 2013 at 6:12 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote:

Quote: Absent a mind capable of inquiry operating within it, the universe would still operate.

Sure, but why? What’s causing it to do so?

It is what it is...
If there is a cause for it, we have no way of ascertaining it. If you do have such a way, please write your paper, claim the million dollars and the Nobel prize.

Until such a cause is proven to exist, there is no reason to assume that it does.

(December 17, 2013 at 6:12 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: I understand what you are saying; I just do not see how it is relevant. It does not do anything to explain why such regularities exist in the Universe.

Because on an irregular universe you, me, we wouldn't be here to ask such questions.
"why"... as if someone thought of all this and then made it so...

(December 17, 2013 at 6:12 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote:

Quote: Where in the bible does it say anything about immaterial?

John 4 says God is a spirit-spirits are immaterial. Not only this but God is eternal (Revelation 4), omnipresent (Kings 8), and immutable (Hebrews 6) which are not properties matter possesses.

Quote: Where does it say that the source of logical absolutes is a gift from the biblical God?

Let’s stay on topic. We are talking about natural regularities (laws) not logical absolutes. Genesis 8 says God is responsible for such regularities.

OK, it's not a bare assertion.... it's a biblical assertion...

(December 17, 2013 at 6:12 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote:

Quote: The defense and description of your God has been evolving over time.

No it hasn’t.

So... the jewish yahweh concept didn't evolve into the christian trinity concept at some point?...say... 1800 years ago?

(December 17, 2013 at 6:12 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: God is not hiding, and I know He exists.

There's the bare assertion I remember reading earlier...

(December 17, 2013 at 6:12 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: His very existence makes such searches possible; therefore it is absurd to pretend anyone does not know He exists. It’d be like someone running around questioning whether their mind exists or not; if it did not they would not be able to engage in such an inquiry.

Ah... another bare assertion...
and that ever so present desire of mankind to surpass the bodily death, keeping the mind intact and apart from the body, so it can go on existing in some other body... even if that other body is not an earthly one... nor one that uses any of the matter in the universe...

(December 17, 2013 at 6:12 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote:

Quote: Which is exactly what you are doing without having any evidence to support the claim.

The very notion of evidence assumes God exists. That’s my entire point.

3rd bare assertion? tss tss tss "I am disapoint".

(December 17, 2013 at 6:12 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote:

Quote: You are sure, and you have no evidence. An interesting approach to examining reality. I also find it interesting that this approach dovetails your feelings toward my recognizing universal regularities without knowing exactly why I perceive them as such.

Such regularities make no sense without Yahweh.

And 4th... you are truly falling from grace...

(December 17, 2013 at 6:12 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote:

Quote: You have no basis for what you consider reality, and what you discount as being fantasy. The central and most cherished belief in your life is indistinguishable from fantasy.

On the contrary, if God did not exist it would be impossible to distinguish between accurate perception and deception.

Would it, now?
Bare assertion Number 5.

(December 17, 2013 at 6:12 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: You have done nothing to explain why such regularities exist in a purely material Universe.

Well, I must say that, at least, you are consistent...
Why do you keep asking that?

(December 17, 2013 at 6:12 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote:

Quote: Then why do you not use the doctrine alone to establish validity to your claims? Why do you resort to statements such as...

I am merely poking holes in your view of reality and pointing out the fact that mine does not possess such shortcomings. It’s a very effective approach.

LOL!
The magic man in the sky takes care of every strange question that your (and other people's) minds can come up with.
And if we ask why does the man in the sky exist?

(December 17, 2013 at 6:12 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote:

Quote: Because we exist and have the capacity for speculation.

Again, you are saying that if we did not exist electrons would cease to repel one another?

I may have read it wrong, but I think he means that if we don't exist, electrons would go on doing their stuff... but no one would be around to measure it and marvel in their effects...

Well if they are so sure they are not delusional they better pray to their god this delusion is not gonna crumble under weight of evidence one day cause they might have hard time realizing they wasted so much time on a bullshit story.

(December 14, 2013 at 1:07 am)The Reality Salesman Wrote: No. You've misunderstood what I said. The concept of "laws" at all is contingent upon our mind possessing the ability to reflect and pursue understanding. I guess I wasn't as clear as I thought.

(December 17, 2013 at 6:12 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: This is not what we are talking about. I am asking you how you can account for the fact that all electrons repel one another and other such regularities (what we call laws) in a purely material and unguided Universe.

Can you account for this being true in under every condition throughout the universe, or does it just seem that way because of your perspective? Does the merit of such a question have the same meaning without a material mind existing to give it meaning? Can a different perception yield different observations?

Quote: Absent a mind capable of inquiry operating within it, the universe would still operate.

(December 17, 2013 at 6:12 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Sure, but why? What’s causing it to do so?

You keep insisting there is a “what”. You haven’t shown reason to believe there is a cosmic prescriber, only that we as humans describe the cosmos. Descriptions do not imply PRE-scriptions.

Quote: Humor me for a moment, and just pretend as though you may not have interpreted the exact message I was trying to convey. Chalk it up to a poor explanation on my part.

(December 17, 2013 at 6:12 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: I understand what you are saying; I just do not see how it is relevant. It does not do anything to explain why such regularities exist in the Universe.

Stat, we perceive them as regularities because of our perspective. We have every reason to believe that our minds are purely material, and no evidence to support anything else. All we need is a mind that seeks to describe an experience, and we have a material mind describing it’s perspective of a material universe. You are claiming a prescriber without even knowing if there’s a prescription. We call them “regularities” to try to understand, but we don’t even know how regular they are. These descriptions are not separate entities from the things we are describing, and if these material things did not exist, there would be no use to describe them with such terms. You’re making a futile attempt to place descriptions used by our minds into a box as an object. You’re not making sense my friend.

(December 17, 2013 at 6:12 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Sure. Even though you claim that you are done.

I was done replying to what you had wrote previously. I had too many issues with the first half of your last response and I didn’t have great expectations for the latter half.

Quote: Where in the bible does it say anything about immaterial?

(December 17, 2013 at 6:12 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: John 4 says God is a spirit-spirits are immaterial. Not only this but God is eternal (Revelation 4), omnipresent (Kings 8), and immutable (Hebrews 6) which are not properties matter possesses.

You have knowledge of spirits and their composition? If not, what you’ve done is read the word “spirits” in the bible, then you pretend to know something about what a spirit is, and then invoke the concept of “Immaterial” because you think it confirms something you previously wanted to be true. That’s not the same thing Stat, you know that too. Additionally, does it say “Omnipresent” Stat? I don’t see that in my bible. Is that another creative liberty that you’ve taken, it would be helpful if you would preface your quotes from the bible with something such as “What I think it means is…” So that I know that you realize it doesn’t actually say that in the bible Hebrews 6 says God is immutable? Perhaps I missed it, but it looked to me that Hebrews 6 was nothing more than a description of what someone thinks God has promised the people who believe the story. The God that particular scripture describes falls short of even human standards of morality. At any rate, it doesn’t say anything about God being unchanging in form, unless I overlooked it. Given the first two preceding examples that you gave, I’m tempted to think it was another attempt to plug something into the bible that you want to be there.

Quote: Where does it say that the source of logical absolutes is a gift from the biblical God?

Genesis 8 says God is responsible for such regularities. [/quote]
Are you relenting Genesis as an authority on the universe now? Can I refer to anything in the old testament that makes your belief look foolish, or am I only limited to Genesis? I think you would rather have this one back. So, I’m going to pretend as though it didn’t happen.



[/quote] Can you cite the scripture that describes Creatio Ex Nihilo in plain direct terms? I assume this too is something you believe is true, right?

Quote: The Bible exists, but a literal interpretation cannot be used to logically defend it.

(December 17, 2013 at 6:12 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: That’s quite the assertion; do you have anything to actually back it up?

Gladly. I assume you won’t have any problem with me using your own failed attempts to use the actual words in the bible to defend its contents:

Quote: If you're telling me that you possess an ability that I do not have, and it is this ability that allows you to know things that I could not comprehend, then unlike the blind man, I certainly don't recognize such a disability, and you remain convinced that something is hiding without knowing whether or not it actually exists.

(December 17, 2013 at 6:12 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Whether or not a blind person knows or believes they are blind seems irrelevant to me. God is not hiding, and I know He exists.

Mmhmm…I know you do. You know it in the way that you believe any subjective thing to be true. God exists insofar as He exists in your mind. Your belief in God is indistinguishable from a delusion. That’s the point of the OP, and examples such as this support my original point.
Your original objection was that anybody could be delusional, and not be aware of it. We’ve narrowed our common experiences of reality to one difference, God. If there is something I hold as true in spite of being unable to distinguish it from delusion then by all means, bring it to the table. As it stands, you’re the one with a specific belief that is indistinguishable from delusion. You think you know an objective truth that you cannot defend, except in subjective terms. God either objectively exists, or doesn’t. You saying that you know it, is not a resolution to your burden.

Quote: If a claim were made about a black cat living in a dark room, and a scientist was appointed to investigate the validity of the claim, the scientist would go in recognizing that there's a chance the claim was wrong, and there is no cat. YOU, on the other hand, just believe the cat exists, and are completely find pretending to know it is true.

(December 17, 2013 at 6:12 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: It’d be like someone running around questioning whether their mind exists or not; if it did not they would not be able to engage in such an inquiry.

No Stat, it would be closer to somebody running around refusing to believe that Allah is the actual God, which is exactly what you do every day. I agree with you there, however, you’re in no position to be sincere in your objection. If you could show that Allah in not the real God, and that it is your God, this conversation wouldn’t be taking so long. If somebody wants to pretend that their mind doesn’t exist, I would love to talk to them as well. But let’s not pretend like such a thing applies to our situation here. You and I both agree that our minds exist, and that’s been established. You are suggesting an additional entity exists, and is operating and governing the function of my mind. You are claiming to have knowledge of it, and you are unsuccessful so far. We have minds, and mine is inquiring into the claims being produced by yours. Can you or can you not distinguish your mind’s product as anything more than a delusion?

Quote: Which is exactly what you are doing without having any evidence to support the claim.

(December 17, 2013 at 6:12 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: The very notion of evidence assumes God exists. That’s my entire point.

Then why is it so hard for you to establish some in support of God? Of every objective thing in the universe we are aware of, evidence can be found to support it. Of every theory we hold in a high degree of certainty, but short of objectively true, there is evidence to support IT. You are saying there is an objectively true God, that is the very source of evidence, but it just so happens that there is ZERO evidence that objectively links God to any and in ALL evidence for which we are aware? You don’t think this sounds absurd?

Quote: You are sure, and you have no evidence. An interesting approach to examining reality. I also find it interesting that this approach dovetails your feelings toward my recognizing universal regularities without knowing exactly why I perceive them as such.

(December 17, 2013 at 6:12 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Such regularities make no sense without Yahweh.

Oh Stat, surely you don’t believe that.

(December 17, 2013 at 6:12 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: It does, If A or B, Not B, then A. .

You overlook the possibility of C, and every other letter in the potentially infinite realm of possibilities.

(December 17, 2013 at 6:12 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: We both espouse “A” and yet “A” can only exist if my view of reality is true, therefore we both have to agree that my view of reality is true. By rejecting my view of reality and yet continuing to espouse “A” you are being irrational.

We both recognize things that appear to us a norms within the observable universe.

You claim to have an explanation.

I do not.

Your conclusion from this: Because I do not pretend to know what the actual explanation is, your explanation must be true, and your reason is because “You just know it.”? I don’t think so Stat.

What if the universe is just a simulation being ran on the computers of our descendants? What if we are just a really complex version of The Sims Video game? I’m not saying I believe it either, but it’s an alternative that makes us the Gods of the universe in question and for our purposes, it relinquishes you of your position to speculate about the state of the actual universe that is running the simulation. If I were talking to someone that had never heard any form of a God hypothesis, and that person had no explanation of their own that they claimed to be true, by your rationale, the simulation theory must be true since the other person did not assert an alternative.