Theists, are you immune to being decieved?

[Statler Waldorf]

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

No it hasn’t.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Really?

Yes really.

Site the scripture that says God is immaterial.

You mean cite? I already gave you this above.

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?

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.

And you think that this makes yours true?

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

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.

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?

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?