Hi Everythingeverafter can you change your top quote box pls, that isn't my staement but Solja247

(September 1, 2010 at 11:32 am)Captain Scarlet Wrote: You need to show me the error of my ways and challenge the premises.

Using science? How do we use science to test a transcendental subject?

That's the whole problem of your premise, it uses an inadequate method.

You may as well be stating that God doesn't exist because the immaterial doesn't exist... it invokes the same methods of testing... to measure against physical reality using methods proven on physical reality something immaterial. It's a basic mismatch of dimensions.

(September 1, 2010 at 3:42 pm)fr0d0 Wrote:

(September 1, 2010 at 11:32 am)Captain Scarlet Wrote: You need to show me the error of my ways and challenge the premises.

Using science? How do we use science to test a transcendental subject?
That's the whole problem of your premise, it uses an inadequate method.

Hi Frodo. I've already answered these points. I reject your view that I'm using the scientific method to disprove god. Just induction from scientific endeavour in the natural world and deduction for a supposed supernatural realm. Where have I relied on science to refute the purely supernatural realm? All I said the supernatural realm cannot Logically contain the necessary type of energy to ensure omnipotence in the natural world. Also that the material world requires material energy for action. So which premise is wrong? If my reasonoing is flawed you should be able to point it out without saying the "whole thing is wrong?" And if you re-read my response I make the same point as you, that if I was purely relying on science the premise would have been really simple, ie god does not exist because the immaterial doesn't exist (which is also true) ;-) So you need to demonstrate where I am relying on science to disprove the supernatural. Alternatively you could sketch out how a supernatural being could dynamically act in our natural world.

I think Cap'n that you're calling scientific explanation logic. Your only refutation of philosophy is via scientific understanding, which you agree we've established is not relevant.

What is this if not a confinement to scientific knowledge: "the supernatural realm cannot Logically contain the necessary type of energy to ensure omnipotence in the natural world"

I can't start to evoke physical theory without limiting the subject, which we've agreed is non physical.

So that's the reasoning to dismiss your original premise.

On to the philosophy. God is omnipotent and can and does interact in the physical reality from the non physical. From himself he created everything. Non physical to physical.

Philosophy says nothing at all to assist the physical understanding of anything. It's a different subject, and you commit a failure in logic if you try to understand one from the other.

I think we agree less than you assert.

I do not conceed scientific knowledge is irrelevant and I do not agree that I am usurping logic with science. That does nothing to refute the premise. Genuinely not being awkward I just sense vagueness with the rejoinder and I am searching for your refutation.

I do not agree that philosophy has nothing to say about the physical. And in addition there are many logical arguments relying on supporting premises directly from observation. Struggling to see your point here.

I understand that it is hard to put together an argument outlining hoe god acts. But if you assert his existence a rough sketch would be useful else we return to mystcism.

Apologies if I read too much into what you said.

I think it's a fun exercise to consider how God would work with our understanding of the physical universe, but always grossly unsatisfying philosophically. I like to play with the first cause idea, and work out the logicality from that. I got a lot from this: http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1044.htm (a concept to build upon).

I don't know if I assert his existence, but maybe I'm off track there. Many people that come from the premise that this is an existent being that we're trying to prove miss the point that this really isn't the interest here.

(September 1, 2010 at 12:48 pm)Captain Scarlet Wrote: Hi Everythingeverafter can you change your top quote box pls, that isn't my staement but Solja247

Gotcha. My bad. Brain fart.