Fucking hell, over 40 pages of "goddidit" and still people are biting (including me, it would seem!).
Lets try to sum this up.
JP, I believe your epistemoligical argument has now been refuted, as you've tried to provide a logical argument for moral and logical truth from an objective mind, but have yet to provide any evidence for this, and your argument been refuted in many ways, one of which my quote below demonstrates.
Your 'ideal' of "logical truth" can be likened to whether or not the theory of evolution exists independently of subjective minds or, as you have trivially changed it to "Is the theory of evolution true regardless of what human minds think about it's truth?."
This question of "Truth" is irrelevant, we are talking about a natural mindless mechanism. We cannot assign value-judgements (i.e. truth or falsity) to events outside of the human realm of existence. The very notion is illogical. You can quote the "principle" (not law) of non-contradiction, but again this only describes a function/property/mechanism of reality. You have demonstrated no need for an additional "Objective mind"
Outside the human realm of conceptualism there exists ONLY FUNCTION. To assign subejctive semantic values to this function in order to attempt to prove an objective mind is ludicrous. It's similar to Dan Dennett talking about the concept of 'what colour was the sky before human beings inhabited the planet?" (its a non-question)
So, if logical truth is a natural mindless mechanism/property of reality, (and I'm pretty sure you can't refute that) there is no need to posit a transcendental objective mind, as per Occam's razor.
Your entire second argument (the a posteriori) is based on a "first cause" argument. (which you have denied on more than one occasion - and as such, I accuse you of intellectual dishonesty).
Whichever way you dress your argument up (in your case, as a causally regressive chain of potentialities and actualities, which results in the concept of "actus purus" - THIS IS A FIRST CAUSE ARGUMENT. So without offering evidence for your god as the first cause, you may as well postulate the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
And don't give me that shit about the FSM being made of physical spaghetti, so therefore is not transcendental, (which is a requirement of your god); - as we ALL know, the notion of FSM actually flying or being made out of spaghetti is purely metaphorical, and anyone who believes the literal truth of FSM is being narrow minded, and not acknowledging the true transcendental nature of FSM.
With that, I've had enough of this thread. As I've previously said to you; I saw another atheist forum, which you infiltrated and spent many pages going round the same circular arguments. You were refuted and dismissed there, and exactly the same has happened here.
Cheerio!
Lets try to sum this up.
JP, I believe your epistemoligical argument has now been refuted, as you've tried to provide a logical argument for moral and logical truth from an objective mind, but have yet to provide any evidence for this, and your argument been refuted in many ways, one of which my quote below demonstrates.
Your 'ideal' of "logical truth" can be likened to whether or not the theory of evolution exists independently of subjective minds or, as you have trivially changed it to "Is the theory of evolution true regardless of what human minds think about it's truth?."
This question of "Truth" is irrelevant, we are talking about a natural mindless mechanism. We cannot assign value-judgements (i.e. truth or falsity) to events outside of the human realm of existence. The very notion is illogical. You can quote the "principle" (not law) of non-contradiction, but again this only describes a function/property/mechanism of reality. You have demonstrated no need for an additional "Objective mind"
Outside the human realm of conceptualism there exists ONLY FUNCTION. To assign subejctive semantic values to this function in order to attempt to prove an objective mind is ludicrous. It's similar to Dan Dennett talking about the concept of 'what colour was the sky before human beings inhabited the planet?" (its a non-question)
So, if logical truth is a natural mindless mechanism/property of reality, (and I'm pretty sure you can't refute that) there is no need to posit a transcendental objective mind, as per Occam's razor.
Your entire second argument (the a posteriori) is based on a "first cause" argument. (which you have denied on more than one occasion - and as such, I accuse you of intellectual dishonesty).
Whichever way you dress your argument up (in your case, as a causally regressive chain of potentialities and actualities, which results in the concept of "actus purus" - THIS IS A FIRST CAUSE ARGUMENT. So without offering evidence for your god as the first cause, you may as well postulate the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
And don't give me that shit about the FSM being made of physical spaghetti, so therefore is not transcendental, (which is a requirement of your god); - as we ALL know, the notion of FSM actually flying or being made out of spaghetti is purely metaphorical, and anyone who believes the literal truth of FSM is being narrow minded, and not acknowledging the true transcendental nature of FSM.
With that, I've had enough of this thread. As I've previously said to you; I saw another atheist forum, which you infiltrated and spent many pages going round the same circular arguments. You were refuted and dismissed there, and exactly the same has happened here.
Cheerio!
