Theists, are you immune to being decieved?

[The Reality Salesman01]

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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...

The laws of nature are not absolute, they are regular because God says so.

Where the hell is this written in your doctrine?

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?

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.

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?

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.