Disproving Odin - An Experiment in arguing with a theist with Theist logic

[I_am_not_mafia]

I don't mean to suggest that ideas don't exist.  They exist, but they do not exist in the way that physical objects do.  Nor do they existence independent of minds to think them.  This makes them a very different category of existing then that of physical objects. 

It might help instead to think of persistent patterns and you can then see that ideas are on the same scale as anything else that exists.

Take a table or inanimate object. That's actually at one end of the scale as it has the same atoms at the beginning of the stage where we would call that collection of atoms a table (as opposed to a tree for example) as it does at the end (before it becomes firewood or compost).

We exist as people, but we replace almost every cell in our body over a cycle of several years, except for neurons in the cerebral cortex. So even people are actually a persistent pattern that exists for a certain period of time. What's more that pattern changes quite radically over the course of its lifetime, from a single fertilised egg to someone dying of old age.

Clouds are the same. Air rises to the height where it reaches the dew point and it becomes too cold for the air to contain the water that it does so it condenses out to become the white vapour. This releases energy which allows the air to rise again continuing the process for a little bit further. A time lapse video of clouds developing into Cumulonimbus clouds is a quite example. What's more the air and water molecules can get replaced with new air depending on the cloud type.

As the saying goes, you can't step into the same river twice. Water is being flushed down and replaced with more water from higher above. It also flushes away the silt exposing more silt that was part of the river's environment that then becomes part of the river. It also changes shape throughout its lifetime, meandering through a field say or growing larger over time or drying up.

Societies or economies are made up of groups of people and businesses that form, die off, get replaced, or create new ones. Or can become part of it via immigration. So they too are persistent patterns.

A memory is a persistent pattern of neuronal firing. It changes each time it is recalled and restored. This memory can be written down but then when read can evoke similar patterns in the brain. Same goes for an idea.

The same applies for a concept, symphony, book or religion. It's on the other end of the scale from the table but they are still patterns that can persist through many different forms. But the crucial point is that they are persistent patterns reliant upon structures of matter and energy like anything else that exists.

It would be completely arbitrary and unwarranted to draw a distinction between all these examples of existence. If something exists then it does so because it is a persistent pattern. But different things change more or less radically throughout their lifetime or can exist in more or fewer different forms.

[SaStrike]

Ok so god DOES actually exist, in our thoughts and imagination only. Noted.

[downbeatplumb]

That’s true the elephant did not begin to exist until some matter took the form of an elephant. But the elephant’s existence is more than just the matter of which it is made. In fact, the matter out of which it is made will change as the elephant grows from conception through its maturity. And upon death the matter will remain even after the elephant has ceased to exist. That’s all we have been saying. The existence of the elephant began at some point and ended at some later point.

Any theory of existence must account for something, like an elephant, to persist in its existence despite undergoing change. Limiting yourself to only material and efficient causes cannot account for either.

Life is a process of carefully balanced energy transfer that elicits certain outputs. In the case of the elephant its the life and thoughts of dumbo.

[Amarok]

Neo's repeating Fesers triangle nonsense   

He's truly hit rock bottom 

---

And no rearranging pre existing  matter is not beginning to exist . That just apologist weasel words.

---

[Neo-Scholastic]

I don't mean to suggest that ideas don't exist. They exist, but they do not exist in the way that physical objects do. Nor do they existence independent of minds to think them. This makes them a very different category of existing then that of physical objects.

As I mentioned before, “existence” is a term of art in philosophy. Without some agreed upon criteria people should use to decide what types of objects fall into or lie outside the category of “things that exist”, it’s a little premature start qualifying the existential status of various objects. There is even some debate about whether or not existence even truly counts as a property.

So given that we both acknowledge that existence is a property that some things have while others do not, it makes sense to me that there are subcategories of existing things depending on what other properties they do or do not have. So while I agree that there are things that exist that are material, like physical objects, I also maintain that things exist that are immaterial, like principles or numbers

Similarly, I actually agree with the statement that immaterial objects do not have independent existence from some mind that conceives them. That said, I am certain that we have very different notions of what constitutes a mind.

I don't see how the ability to translate the word triangle into another language (or to write it rather the say it for that matter) makes the concept independent of the minds that think the concept. And the appellation triangle is a useful concept. But nothing about triangular shaped object is added to the object itself by the children's identification.

True nothing is added by identification. It is the act of identification that recognizes the forms, material, purposes and origins of bodies.

Sensible bodies have objective properties that can be abstracted from and conceived of apart from whatever other properties that sensible body may have. We can conceive of a material, such as metal, without regard for any specific form that metal may take. We can think about its modulus of elasticity, melting point, and atomic weight without thinking about a specific form. Likewise, we can think about forms independent of their material. I can think about I-beams, make moment diagrams about them etc. abstracted from any particular I-beam made of a specific metal. ‘Steel’ is an abstraction every bit as much as the form ‘I-beam’.

My point is this. When we are talking about objective reality that means things that are true about the world regardless of who thinks about them. This includes (but is not limited to) the objective properties of sensible bodies, which is why a group of children can recognize the objective properties of various sensible bodies, including both whether they are described as wooden or whether they are described as triangular. There are real things about those sensible bodies that can be known intellectually. Something must justify the description regardless of whether you are describing its material, form, purpose, or origin.

I'm curious though, if you think the concept triangle exists independent of minds to think it, do you think it began to exist, or do you think the concept is eternal? If you do think it began to exist, when would you say it began? I believe it began to exist when the first mind created the category.

It exists eternally in the mind of God.

Also, do you think that the existence of ideas and objects is similar enough that anything about how one came to be can be usefully compared to how the other came to be? My position is that they cannot and even if I accepted your idea of an independently existing triangle, I still find them too dissimilar for such a comparison.

Forms and Purposes are indispensable to attain knowledge. To use your example, elephants exist. It is extremely difficult, and I believe impossible, to describe what an elephant is by refereeing only to the matter from which it is made and successive states that matter takes. That is what you are asking people to do when you dispense with formal and final causes. No feature known by its form can ‘exist’ – not tusks, nor trunks, nor legs, nor tails. No feature known by its purpose can ‘exist’ – not hearts, nor lungs, nor blood, nor brains. Unless the forms and purposes manifest in the parts of the elephant, the elephant cannot exist.
My position is that considering only the efficient and material causes of things, in the abstract, is useful in natural science, but the ability to make those abstractions must take for granted the reality of forms and purposes.

So ultimately, the objection "those are just descriptions" is a double edged sword for those who use it to dismiss the reality of forms and purposes. Matter is also 'just' a description. There is a relationship between what things are, their existence, and how we describe the existence of those things. The decision to call some of those descriptions real while asserting that others are not is completely arbitrary. You need to give me some reason why the abstracted conception of a thing's matter is any more real than the abstract conception of it's form.

[Mystic]

Life never increases in life without a source, and life get's spiritual life from spiritual life. If the source of life which in it's essence is spiritual is limited, then the path towards perfection would be impossible for it and for any living being.

And if an absolute perfect judgement didn't exist, then nothing can have proper measured spiritual value, for example your personality would not be an accurate objective reality.

And if absolute perfect judgment exists, it's the highest form of living judgment and hence life and love, and hence power and sight, and hence knowledge and wisdom, and so on and so forth.

And that cannot but be one singular reality, since diverse aspects would make it imperfect, and if his infinite aspects weren't in reality one attribute of sheer perfection, and oneness, they would all lack infinite attributes at infinite absolute level and hence be a paradox to call them attributes of the perfect being.

Hence God and the Source of all life is One Sheer Singular perfection.

You welcome.

[Huggy Bear]

Again if you're going to call the man a liar your going to have to provide proof other than insinuations because his claims are too fantastical for you to believe.

And I find interesting that the only source you're using is one with a clear agenda and zero objectivity.

Would you be convinced if I started posting info from a flat earth website?

So, this is really interesting, and relevant to the OP.

On the one hand, you accept the extraordinary testimony of a priest that a light is god, and you accept the extraordinary testimony of a miraculous healing, but you do not accept mundane testimony that a man was seen faking his crutches, and you do not accept Upshaw’s own testimony that he hadn’t been bed or wheelchair bound for twenty years, which would make Branham a liar.  So, testimony is sufficient evidence only when it confirms your pre-conclusions?  Got it.

You've provided no testimony / proof stating that Upshaw has been faking a disability for 66 years. I find your claim that a congressman would fake a disability for 66 years in order to claim a miraculous healing to be just plain irrational.

While were at it, was FDR faking polio also?

[Abaddon_ire]

RoadRunner, you have a problem with your argument. Kalam supports any deity of choice. Yahweh, Allah, Odin whatever. You have no option but to accept that gods which are not yours must also exist.

It also supports vacuum fluctuations as a cause of the universe.

Sure, or the FSM or anything else for that matter. KCA is another "God of the Gaps" and one can inject whatever one wants into it. That is why it is utterly useless. Well, that and the premises are faulty. Oh, and that the apologists chuck in extra premises because reasons and chuck out Occam because reasons.

[GrandizerII]

Something must justify the description regardless of whether you are describing its material, form, purpose, or origin.

Human brains share lots of commonalities that lead to common observations and descriptions. You should accustom yourself to first resorting to what human psychology has to say about the human mind before jumping to unwarranted conclusions to do with the supernatural.

It exists eternally in the mind of God.

Pure ad hoc. There is no clear and conclusive evidence that an unembodied mind exists, or even can exist (in the objective sense of the term). I thought the whole point of arguments like the KCA (and the arguments by your beloved Aquinas) was that God can be extrapolated from this reality. Clearly, this has not been the case thus far.

So ultimately, the objection "those are just descriptions" is a double edged sword for those who use it to dismiss the reality of forms and purposes. Matter is also 'just' a description. There is a relationship between what things are, their existence, and how we describe the existence of those things. The decision to call some of those descriptions real while asserting that others are not is completely arbitrary. You need to give me some reason why the abstracted conception of a thing's matter is any more real than the abstract conception of it's form.

It seems like Jenny is talking about objects as a whole (including both matter and form) while you are talking about the material cause only (in objecting to what she has to say). I believe what Jenny is arguing is that an object that can be observed in the physical world (or our common human perception of it) is in a different plane of existence than an object that can only be perceived in the mind. Normally, when we talk about existence when it comes to the matter of God, we are not discussing whether or not God exists in the abstract world of the human mind.

[Amarok]

Something must justify the description regardless of whether you are describing its material, form, purpose, or origin.

Nope the fact it exists and is observable is more then justification

It exists eternally in the mind of God.

Mystic bullcrap

So ultimately, the objection "those are just descriptions" is a double edged sword for those who use it to dismiss the reality of forms and purposes. Matter is also 'just' a description. There is a relationship between what things are, their existence, and how we describe the existence of those things. The decision to call some of those descriptions real while asserting that others are not is completely arbitrary. You need to give me some reason why the abstracted conception of a thing's matter is any more real than the abstract conception of it's form.

1. It's no arbitrary

2. Your talking out your ass  they are just descriptions and the rest of this derp is apologist  gibberish . And quoting that deluded fraud Fesers will not help you with your lame apologist excuse making.

---

Something must justify the description regardless of whether you are describing its material, form, purpose, or origin.

Human brains share lots of commonalities that lead to common observations and descriptions. You should accustom yourself to first resorting to what human psychology has to say about the human mind before jumping to unwarranted conclusions to do with the supernatural.

It exists eternally in the mind of God.

Pure ad hoc. There is no clear and conclusive evidence that an unembodied mind exists, or even can exist (in the objective sense of the term). I thought the whole point of arguments like the KCA (and the arguments by your beloved Aquinas) was that God can be extrapolated from this reality. Clearly, this has not been the case thus far.

So ultimately, the objection "those are just descriptions" is a double edged sword for those who use it to dismiss the reality of forms and purposes. Matter is also 'just' a description. There is a relationship between what things are, their existence, and how we describe the existence of those things. The decision to call some of those descriptions real while asserting that others are not is completely arbitrary. You need to give me some reason why the abstracted conception of a thing's matter is any more real than the abstract conception of it's form.

It seems like Jenny is talking about objects as a whole (including both matter and form) while you are talking about the material cause only (in objecting to what she has to say). I believe what Jenny is arguing is that an object that can be observed in the physical world (or our common human perception of it) is in a different plane of existence than an object that can only be perceived in the mind. Normally, when we talk about existence when it comes to the matter of God, we are not discussing whether or not God exists in the abstract world of the human mind.

But Grand we need magic sky ju ju to justify descriptions of  reality  otherwise were just being arbitrary because Wooter and his gang of apologist "thinkers" say so.  

And yes it as silly as described above