Theists, are you immune to being decieved?

[The Reality Salesman01]

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.

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?

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

---

Genesis 6 Therefore let us move beyond the elementary teachings about Christ and be taken forward to maturity, not laying again the foundation of repentance from acts that lead to death,[a] and of faith in God, 2 instruction about cleansing rites,[b] the laying on of hands, the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment. 3 And God permitting, we will do so.
4 It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, 5 who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age 6 and who have fallen[c] away, to be brought back to repentance. To their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace. 7 Land that drinks in the rain often falling on it and that produces a crop useful to those for whom it is farmed receives the blessing of God. 8 But land that produces thorns and thistles is worthless and is in danger of being cursed. In the end it will be burned.
9 Even though we speak like this, dear friends, we are convinced of better things in your case—the things that have to do with salvation. 10 God is not unjust; he will not forget your work and the love you have shown him as you have helped his people and continue to help them. 11 We want each of you to show this same diligence to the very end, so that what you hope for may be fully realized. 12 We do not want you to become lazy, but to imitate those who through faith and patience inherit what has been promised.

---

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?

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?

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:

---

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.

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.

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.

Genesis 6: Therefore let us move beyond the elementary teachings about Christ and be taken forward to maturity, not laying again the foundation of repentance from acts that lead to death,[a] and of faith in God, 2 instruction about cleansing rites,[b] the laying on of hands, the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment. 3 And God permitting, we will do so.
4 It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, 5 who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age 6 and who have fallen[c] away, to be brought back to repentance. To their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace. 7 Land that drinks in the rain often falling on it and that produces a crop useful to those for whom it is farmed receives the blessing of God. 8 But land that produces thorns and thistles is worthless and is in danger of being cursed. In the end it will be burned.
9 Even though we speak like this, dear friends, we are convinced of better things in your case—the things that have to do with salvation. 10 God is not unjust; he will not forget your work and the love you have shown him as you have helped his people and continue to help them. 11 We want each of you to show this same diligence to the very end, so that what you hope for may be fully realized. 12 We do not want you to become lazy, but to imitate those who through faith and patience inherit what has been promised.

---

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

Oh Stat, surely you don’t believe that.

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.

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.