redneF vs Mr_Metaphysics

redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
redneF vs Mr_Metaphysics

This thread is a private 1 on 1 between myself and Mr_Metaphysics.

That is, if he ever shows up....

 

Please refrain from posting in this thread. The mods will only delete your posts.

Thank you, and enjoy the thread.

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Mr. M has allowed me to

Mr. M has allowed me to choose the topic of the debate, between us.

The topic I've chosen is Personal Reasoning.

Obviously, this is between mine vs his.

But, he'll represent the reasons why some theists reason that their position is more logical that the default position of never having adopted such a folklore as a philosophy, and basis for understanding of the origins, and devolopment of the nature of the physical universe, and biological life that has occurred in it.

I, as an atheist, will obviously represent the reasons why I think being skeptical of anything based on any theist claims, or supernatural claims, of either the agents of theism, or any stories that come from theism.

 

I'd like to start by asking Mr.M, how he came to his current theist philosophy.

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


Mr_Metaphysics (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
redneF wrote:Mr. M has

redneF wrote:

Mr. M has allowed me to choose the topic of the debate, between us.

The topic I've chosen is Personal Reasoning.

Obviously, this is between mine vs his.

But, he'll represent the reasons why some theists reason that their position is more logical that the default position of never having adopted such a folklore as a philosophy, and basis for understanding of the origins, and devolopment of the nature of the physical universe, and biological life that has occurred in it.

I, as an atheist, will obviously represent the reasons why I think being skeptical of anything based on any theist claims, or supernatural claims, of either the agents of theism, or any stories that come from theism.

I'd like to start by asking Mr.M, how he came to his current theist philosophy.

My personal reasoning is based on the fundamental tenet of logic which is that given an argument with true premises and a valid form, the conclusion must follow.  

There are arguments in which the premises are true, and the form is valid, and the conclusion is "God exists".  

Therefore, logic dictates that I believe in God.  That is why I am a theist.

 


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Mr_Metaphysics wrote:My

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

My personal reasoning is based on the fundamental tenet of logic

Human logic is based on intuition.

It's no better than a coin toss, no matter what 'method' of 'logic' one uses, when speculating on an 'unknown'.

 

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:
Therefore, logic dictates that I believe in God.  That is why I am a theist.

I could 'logically' conclude the same thing, or something else.

Logic always boils down to personal opinions.

Opinions and reality, are not mutually inclusive.

I have the proper understanding that 'logic' is not a very practical method at making reliable predictions.

Which is why I don't deviate from the default position of being skeptical of any a priori.

 

So, it's a crapshoot, to not be skeptical.

And 'believing' an a priori assumption, is an emotional impetus to suspend 'disbelief' (skepticism). What many refer to as being 'foolish', or 'foolhardy'.

Believing is not impartial, nor is it pragmatism.

 

Skepticism is a default position, that is fundamentally tied to our base instinct to survive, which is a reflex.

 

 

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


Mr_Metaphysics (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
redneF wrote:Mr_Metaphysics

redneF wrote:

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

My personal reasoning is based on the fundamental tenet of logic

Human logic is based on intuition.

It's no better than a coin toss, no matter what 'method' of 'logic' one uses, when speculating on an 'unknown'.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'human logic'.  Is there a giraffe logic, or an elephant logic?

What do you mean logic is based on 'intuition'?  In my dictionary, 'intuition' is defined as 'something known or believed instinctively, without actual evidence for it'.  Are you saying that there is no evidence that it is true that, say, a rock is not a dog?

Take the form:

If P, then Q.

P.

Therefore, Q.

Are you saying that our conclusion "Q" is by mere luck?  It's just a coin toss, and that we cannot stand on the strength of the premises from which we've inferred Q?
 

Quote:
I could 'logically' conclude the same thing, or something else.

Go ahead and try.

Quote:
Logic always boils down to personal opinions.

?????

If P, then Q

P

Therefore, Q

 

That's PERSONAL OPINION?

Can you please explain the possibility of something different?

 


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Mr_Metaphysics wrote:redneF

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

redneF wrote:

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

My personal reasoning is based on the fundamental tenet of logic

Human logic is based on intuition.

It's no better than a coin toss, no matter what 'method' of 'logic' one uses, when speculating on an 'unknown'.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'human logic'.  Is there a giraffe logic, or an elephant logic?

No, of course not.

I was disambiguating the term 'logic'.

Just saying 'logic' is ambiguous. I don't debate in ambiguous terms, because it's silly to do so.

I was simply making 100% clear, that 'logic' is what we refer to as a method that human's have devised, in order for humans to conjecture and speculate on something they have no firm evidence for.

As such, 'logic', of something that there is no form evidence for, is no better than a coin toss.

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:
What do you mean logic is based on 'intuition'?  In my dictionary, 'intuition' is defined as 'something known or believed instinctively, without actual evidence for it'.  

Exactly.

Intuition is a method that humans use to speculate, or contemplate.

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:
 

redneF wrote:
I could 'logically' conclude the same thing, or something else.

Go ahead and try.

I could conclude that the whole concept of gods are merely an ancient folkore, and completely incompatible with reality.

At bare minimum, my odds of being mistaken/correct on that theory, are 50/50.

And I can dream up any number of theories, and they can all have the same 50/50 odds.

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:
 

redneF wrote:
Logic always boils down to personal opinions.

?????

If P, then Q

P

Therefore, Q

 

That's PERSONAL OPINION?

If you are describing a past event, then it's personal opinion based on observation.

If you are making a prediction a future event, then it's personal prediction/opinion, based on human intuition.

That's the distinction between the two.

Those are still a subset of 'Logic'.

And 'Logic' is based on human thought.

 

I just call it 'speculations', when you're conjecturing or contemplating on a priori's.

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:
 

Can you please explain the possibility of something different?

The 'conclusion' (Q) could be a 'false positive' based on human error.

It happens all the time...

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


Mr_Metaphysics (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
redneF wrote:No, of course

redneF wrote:

No, of course not.

I was disambiguating the term 'logic'.

"Logic" is not an ambiguous term; how many different meanings of logic do you think there are?

'Logic' refers to the process of proper inference.

What other definitions are you aware of?

Quote:
I was simply making 100% clear, that 'logic' is what we refer to as a method that human's have devised, in order for humans to conjecture and speculate on something they have no firm evidence for.

You just claimed that logic is a method invented by people for the purposes of guesswork; what evidence do you have to back this up?

Can you cite a source for me?

Quote:
As such, 'logic', of something that there is no form evidence for, is no better than a coin toss.

You just claimed that we have no evidence for logic, which is the process of proper inference.  Now, I can't quite make sense of how a *process* requires evidence, so I will assume that you mean that the axioms of logic have no evidence.  Consequently, I will also assume that by claiming the axioms of logic have no evidence, you are saying that the axioms of logic are unreliable, such that an argument with true premises and a valid form can possibly produce a false conclusion.

Is this your claim?

Quote:
I could conclude that the whole concept of gods are merely an ancient folkore, and completely incompatible with reality.

Again, give me an actual argument; formalize it in terms of premises and a conclusion, and I will judge your argument accordingly.

Quote:
At bare minimum, my odds of being mistaken/correct on that theory, are 50/50.

And I can dream up any number of theories, and they can all have the same 50/50 odds.

Just saying it does not make it so; give me an actual argument, and we can compare the strength of your argument vs. the strength of mine.  I am quite certain that the odds will be a bit more lopsided than 50/50.

Quote:
If you are describing a past event, then it's personal opinion based on observation.

So if I were to say, "There was a Tsunami in Japan", which is in the past, it is my personal opinion that there was a Tsunami in Japan?!

Quote:
If you are making a prediction a future event, then it's personal prediction/opinion, based on human intuition.

I need to point out that the schema '[p & (p-->q)-->q]' is axiomatic, even if the propositional variables signify a future contingent; for the axiom itself is a conditional statement.  And even if the propositional variables signify false statements, which may or may not be opinions, the entire axiom is still true.

Anyway, are you saying all predictions re: the future are matters of personal opinion, such that meteorologists merely propagate their personal opinions and nothing else?

Quote:
Those are still a subset of 'Logic'.

And 'Logic' is based on human thought.

Very good.  Logic is based on human thought.  Do you agree that logic, based on human thought, is reliable?

Quote:
The 'conclusion' (Q) could be a 'false positive' based on human error.

Not if the premises are true and the form is valid; that being the case, the conclusion must follow.

You asked me about the bases for my belief; do you actually want to argue that logic is unreliable?


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Mr_Metaphysics wrote:"Logic"

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

"Logic" is not an ambiguous term

False.

It's a ubiquitous 'catch all' term.

There are many 'types' of methodology that fall under the category of 'logic'

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:
... how many different meanings of logic do you think there are?

The term 'logic' is a colloquial 'catch all' term, among average people.

Ask a person off the street what 'Boolean Logic' is, or how it differs from, or how closely it resembles 'fuzzy logic', and many wouldn't even know that 'logic' had subsets.

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:
'Logic' refers to the process of proper inference.

If you say so.

BTW, 'proper' is a subjective term; not 'objective.

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:
What other definitions are you aware of?

I forget all the different ones I've heard about, but the ones I know of are Predicate Logic, Boolean Logic, Fuzzy Logic, Mathematical Logic, 1st order logic. That kind of thing.

I'm not a 'trained' logician, or whatever. I'm an engineer.

Apparently, the formulas you use are a 'Modal Logic'?

I'd never really heard the term before just recently, but, it looks like an algebraic shorthand for axioms. Which I think is a totally cool way to break down a problem.

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

Quote:
I was simply making 100% clear, that 'logic' is what we refer to as a method that human's have devised, in order for humans to conjecture and speculate on something they have no firm evidence for.

You just claimed that logic is a method invented by people for the purposes of guesswork; what evidence do you have to back this up?

Can you cite a source for me?

I was under the impression that the formalized origins of 'logic' were historically thought to be a Greek discipline invented by either Plato, or Aristotle.

No?

In any event, I don't know why historians would even try and attribute that 'logic' was 'invented'. Intuition and structured reasoning and problem solving obviously has been around much longer than that.

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

Quote:
As such, 'logic', of something that there is no form evidence for, is no better than a coin toss.

You just claimed that we have no evidence for logic

I did?

Did I, really?

Please quote where I said 'We have no evidence for logic'. 

Because that's a nonsensical statement.

 

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

... so I will assume that you mean that the axioms of logic have no evidence. 

No.

The axioms of logic have no music, either.

That's a category error.

Logic are ideas in the human mind. A thing.

Evidence is a thing.

Music is a thing.

 

Put simply, one saying they use 'Logic' (no matter the variety) boils down to one person indicating they use human interpretations of 'things', or 'ideas'.

Logic (as we speak of it) is a 'human' construct, of the human mind.

I think it's entirely correct to say that it's a human method to extrapolate.

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

Consequently, I will also assume that by claiming the axioms of logic have no evidence, you are saying...

I never said anything of the sort. That's a category error statement. It makes no sense.

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

that the axioms of logic are unreliable, such that an argument with true premises and a valid form can possibly produce a false conclusion.

Is this your claim?

That's not what I said, nor what I meant. 

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

Quote:
I could conclude that the whole concept of gods are merely an ancient folkore, and completely incompatible with reality.

Again, give me an actual argument; formalize it in terms of premises and a conclusion, and I will judge your argument accordingly.

Your opinion is no better than a coin toss.

If you can unequivocally falsify my theory, then you would eliminate the possibility/probability of my theory completely, and make it a completely silly notion.

Seeing as there are hundreds of millions of atheists that would align entirely with my theory, it would be quite a coup if you could do that.

 

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

Quote:
At bare minimum, my odds of being mistaken/correct on that theory, are 50/50.

And I can dream up any number of theories, and they can all have the same 50/50 odds.

Just saying it does not make it so

No, of course not.

But, we can use the Null Hypothesis argument, and go in circles till the sun explodes...

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

give me an actual argument, and we can compare the strength of your argument vs. the strength of mine.  I am quite certain that the odds will be a bit more lopsided than 50/50.

How can that possibly be?

You have nothing but conjecture about a god.

 

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

Quote:
If you are describing a past event, then it's personal opinion based on observation.

So if I were to say, "There was a Tsunami in Japan", which is in the past, it is my personal opinion that there was a Tsunami in Japan?!

Yes.

It may/may not have happened.

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

Quote:
If you are making a prediction a future event, then it's personal prediction/opinion, based on human intuition.

Anyway, are you saying all predictions re: the future are matters of personal opinion, such that meteorologists merely propagate their personal opinions and nothing else?

Their 'predictions' are based on their personal conclusions. Because of that, they're wrong, quite often.

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

I need to point out that the schema '[p & (p-->q)-->q]' is axiomatic, even if the propositional variables signify a future contingent; for the axiom itself is a conditional statement.  And even if the propositional variables signify false statements, which may or may not be opinions, the entire axiom is still true.

I don't care much for how philosophers and logicians use the subjective terms 'false' and 'true', or 'wrong' and 'right'.

Their semantics are terrible, and lead to non sequiturs and semantic fallacies.

The most blatant one that appears around here all the time is "Atheism is false". Which is a nonsensical statement, in 2 ways.

 

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

Quote:
Those are still a subset of 'Logic'.

And 'Logic' is based on human thought.

Very good.  Logic is based on human thought.  Do you agree that logic, based on human thought, is reliable?

No.

Not at all. That could never be my contention. I know otherwise. I'm very skeptical of even my own 'logic'. Logic is just a preoccupation I flirt with. It's not a dogma for me.

I don't assume logic to be a foolproof method of prediction, or determining anything accurately and/or comprehensively.

I don't see a purpose for not being skeptical, of much.

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

Quote:
The 'conclusion' (Q) could be a 'false positive' based on human error.

Not if the premises are true and the form is valid; that being the case, the conclusion must follow.

100% agreed.

But, without having the opportunity to study the premises extensively, for purposes of verification/falsification, then the best you can claim about your premises, are 'educated guesses', which brings us full circle to 'personal opinion' once again.

 

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

You asked me about the bases for my belief; do you actually want to argue that logic is unreliable?

There's no debate about that. Human logic is based on human thought. As such, humans can be terribly poor at making reliable predictions.

I see it constantly, with veteran PhD's, engineers, chemists, programmers, etc.

That's why the shift to computers for modeling. They are exponentially better, and magnitudes faster than even the most highly skilled groups of humans.

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
5 days and counting...

5 days and counting...


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
6 days and counting...

6 days and counting...


Mr_Metaphysics (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
redneF wrote:False.It's a

redneF wrote:

False.

It's a ubiquitous 'catch all' term.

There are many 'types' of methodology that fall under the category of 'logic'



Okay.  Give me some other meanings of the term and tell me which methodology denies that if premises of an argument are all true and the form is valid, then the conclusion may be false?

Citation please.

Quote:
The term 'logic' is a colloquial 'catch all' term, among average people.

It doesn't matter.  Your topic was methods of ascertaining truth, and you are here trying to argue that logic is not reliable.  You need to show me how that is the case.

Quote:
If you say so.

BTW, 'proper' is a subjective term; not 'objective.

Okay.  Then I am the winner of this debate, because the Pope wears a white robe.  If the Pope wears a white robe, then I win.  But the Pope wears a purple robe, and you lose yesterday and tommorrow.

Quote:
I forget all the different ones I've heard about, but the ones I know of are Predicate Logic, Boolean Logic, Fuzzy Logic, Mathematical Logic, 1st order logic. That kind of thing.

Those aren't definitions of "logic"; those are various systems of logic.

What other definitions of "logic" are you aware of?

Quote:
I'm not a 'trained' logician

That's quote obvious.

Quote:
I was under the impression that the formalized origins of 'logic' were historically thought to be a Greek discipline invented by either Plato, or Aristotle.

I'm not talking about systems of logic.

Quote:
In any event, I don't know why historians would even try and attribute that 'logic' was 'invented'. Intuition and structured reasoning and problem solving obviously has been around much longer than that.

Okay.  Then please recant your statement that it was invented.

Quote:
That's not what I said, nor what I meant.

Okay.  So I stand by my original comment, which was that I can know God exists because there are sound arguments where 'God exists' is the conclusion.

Quote:
Seeing as there are hundreds of millions of atheists that would align entirely with my theory, it would be quite a coup if you could do that.

There are lots of irrational uneducated people out there.  A hundred million monkeys can be wrong.

Quote:
Yes.

It may/may not have happened.

Um, no.  It did happen.  Turn on the news.  

It's not my personal opinion.  It actually did happen.  It's a fact, not an opinion.

Quote:
I don't care much for how philosophers and logicians use the subjective terms 'false' and 'true', or 'wrong' and 'right'.

True and false are subjective?  Fine, then God exists for me, but he does not exist for you.  Therefore, atheism and theism are both true.

Thank you.  Now everybody is a winner!

Quote:
lead to non sequiturs and semantic fallacies.

You just said logic was a human invention, and that true and false are subjective terms.  Who are you to speak of semantic fallacies?

Quote:
Not at all. That could never be my contention. I know otherwise. I'm very skeptical of even my own 'logic'. Logic is just a preoccupation I flirt with. It's not a dogma for me.

Okay.  I win the debate because the pope has a white robe.

Quote:
100% agreed.

Okay. This goes against everything you've said up until this point.

Quote:
But, without having the opportunity to study the premises extensively, for purposes of verification/falsification, then the best you can claim about your premises, are 'educated guesses', which brings us full circle to 'personal opinion' once again.

Ah, so you are not talking about the unreliability of logic.  You are talking about our epistemic ability to assess whether premises are true.  But at the very least, you can agree that if the premises are true, and the form is valid, and the conclusion is 'God exists', then God must exist?

Quote:
There's no debate about that. Human logic is based on human thought. As such, humans can be terribly poor at making reliable predictions.

What do you mean 'human logic'?  Is there a giraffe logic, or an elephant logic?

Quote:
That's why the shift to computers for modeling. They are exponentially better, and magnitudes faster than even the most highly skilled groups of humans.

And yet humans created them, using logic.  Go figure.


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Mr_Metaphysics wrote:redneF

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

redneF wrote:

False.

It's a ubiquitous 'catch all' term.

There are many 'types' of methodology that fall under the category of 'logic'



Okay.  Give me some other meanings of the term and tell me which methodology denies that if premises of an argument are all true and the form is valid, then the conclusion may be false?

Citation please.

Fuzzy logic uses 'degrees' of 'truth', instead of 'absolute' true/false.

 

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

redneF wrote:

The term 'logic' is a colloquial 'catch all' term, among average people.

It doesn't matter.  Your topic was methods of ascertaining truth, and you are here trying to argue that logic is not reliable.  You need to show me how that is the case.

I'll give you a great example:

"What goes up, must come down"

 

That was 'considered' true for how many thousands of years???

Your game (the theists game) is to play up 'logic' as if it's never been unreliable. That if something makes sense to us, then it is reality.

As if reality conformed to our minds.

As if reality behaved in a pure linear fashion.

As if by intuition we could accurately predict an a priori with absolute accuracy.

 

It was never the case, no matter what you, or any other person thinks or claims.

The only way to distinguish between absolute certainty and a high possibility/probability, is by trial and error, with strict controls.

 

And any scientist worth his salt, will know that behaviours are dependent on many variables, such as temperature, gravity, atmosphere, time, etc.

What you think is absolutely certain under 1 set of circumstances, predicts nothing under another set of circumstances. Absolutely nothing.

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

Okay.  So I stand by my original comment, which was that I can know God exists because there are sound arguments where 'God exists' is the conclusion.

Under the circumstances, that's merely a idea that you believe is compatible with reality, but with no evidence.

That's not very 'scientific'. That's 'wishful thinking'.

 

However, I want to make it clear that I'm not saying you couldn't be correct, at least, to some degree.

But, not in the way, you'd like it to be.

 

Listen, you don't even understand enough about how your premises are not 'workable' at all, let alone 'true'.

So, posturing that you are have devised an 'absolute certainty' of a god, is the most intellectually bankrupt assertion you could possibly make.

The best you could possibly come up with, is a synthetic approximation in your mind.

That's simply an idea.

But, then running around telling everyone that the idea in your mind is absolute reality because you imagine reality must conform to your thoughts, is being completely unrealistic.

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

There are lots of irrational uneducated people out there.  A hundred million monkeys can be wrong.

However, you claim that you are immune to being wrong, because you use 'logic'.

Which is utterly stupid.

Simple arithmetic can illustrate why.

Garbage in = Garbage in

Hindsight being 20/20, demonstrates that Garbage in=Garbage out.

 

Human logic is derived from nature. It is contingent upon the universe.

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

Um, no.  It did happen.  Turn on the news.

You mean that because something is on the news, and reported, it must be absolutely accurate?

That's news to me...

 

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

It's not my personal opinion. 

Actually, it is your opinion, based on what you've seen.

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

It actually did happen. 

It is your opinion, based on what you've seen.

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

It's a fact, not an opinion.

Were you there?

I doubt it. I wasn't either. However, it's not difficult to assume that it is a fact, for the simple 'reason' that it is hardly an anomaly, or supernatural phenomenon.

Ergo, we cannot draw any parallels with supernatural claims.

 

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

True and false are subjective?  

I'm glad you stuck your neck out on this one...

Whether you're intentionally being obtuse, or genuinely not astute enough, or perceptive enough, to know that 'true' and 'false' have become completely banal in meaning, in colloquial speech and narratives.

They have become rheotical and hyperbolic devices, no doubt, because of their abuse, by religion. The terms 'true/false' in sermons and proselytizing, have diminished their veracity as narratives.

Much like 'honesty'.

Sacred Truth being a good example. How ironic that even the church indicates that there are more than one kind of 'truth'.

 

In science, 'truths' only become 'law' when they cannot be falsified, under strict scrutinity, and by cross examination by rivals.

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

Therefore, atheism and theism are both true.

1- There is no 'atheism', just as there is no 'not pregnantism'

2- Being pregnant is a dichotomy. Either/Or

Being 'pregnant' is a state.

Being 'not pregant' is a state.

 

Being pregnant is a (+) positive state.

Being not pregant is a ( ) neutral state.

They are NOT opposite states.

 

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

You just said logic was a human invention, and that true and false are subjective terms.  Who are you to speak of semantic fallacies?

Who am I to not speak of semantic fallacies?

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

redneF wrote:
But, without having the opportunity to study the premises extensively, for purposes of verification/falsification, then the best you can claim about your premises, are 'educated guesses', which brings us full circle to 'personal opinion' once again.

Ah, so you are not talking about the unreliability of logic.  

You are conflating 'logic' (the math) and 'human thought processes', and 'human abilities to make a priori reliable predictions that are compatible with reality'.

Since 'reality' shapes our 'minds' to conform with 'reality', we can never get ahead of 'reality'.

We just play 'catchup'.

Hindsight is the ONLY absolute method of 20/20.

Reality is constrained, obviously. It is not 'limitless'.

Otherwise it wouldn't 'work'.

Try and wrap your head around that last part. That is where your whole problem is.

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

You are talking about our epistemic ability to assess whether premises are true.  

Nope.

Reality is not contingent on human minds. Just as it's not contingent on rocks.

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

But at the very least, you can agree that if the premises are true, and the form is valid, and the conclusion is 'God exists', then God must exist?

I'd be insane if I didn't.

 

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

redneF wrote:

There's no debate about that. Human logic is based on human thought. As such, humans can be terribly poor at making reliable predictions.

What do you mean 'human logic'?  Is there a giraffe logic, or an elephant logic?

I'm glad you stuck your neck out on this one, as well.

I'm simply 1 step ahead of you (theists). I'm making certain to make it absolutely clear, that it's 'human' thought processes that I'm referring to, and not the strawman of 'logical absolutes' that the TAG argument is based on.

The 'absolutes' absolutely exist, obviously.

A complete understanding of how they 'work', is something we do not understand very well, beyond the sub atomic level.

 

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

redneF wrote:

That's why the shift to computers for modeling. They are exponentially better, and magnitudes faster than even the most highly skilled groups of humans.

And yet humans created them, using logic.  Go figure.

Exactly.

Using 20/20 hindsight, to be precise.

 

In order to make sure ALL the constraints are accounted for, and are sufficiently detailed enough, to demonstrate the principle reality that we are attempting to model.

I doubt you realize just how much math, physics, and Euclidian geometry there is, just to relatively approximate the shell of a (theoretical) egg, somewhat accurately, at 1 fixed point on a construction plane in a computer model.

That represents a simple peripheral model.

And that is without any physical attributes assigned to the model.

If it weren't for micro chips, you could fill a room with paper depending on the resolution and bit depth of a digital model, that is only somewhat representative of reality which all indications are, travels up to c (speed of light).

 

So.....you say you have some data that you'd like us to work with?

 

Lay it on me...

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


Mr_Metaphysics (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
redneF wrote:Fuzzy logic

redneF wrote:

Fuzzy logic uses 'degrees' of 'truth', instead of 'absolute' true/false.

Um, there are not degrees of truth; we may know something to be true with a certain probability, but truth itself has no degrees.  Something is either 100% true or 100% false.  

So I bring you back to the original question:

(1) IF P, then Q

(2) P

Assuming that both premises are true, which methodology denies that Q is true?

Quote:
I'll give you a great example:

"What goes up, must come down"

That was 'considered' true for how many thousands of years???

You are talking about how we know that individual premises are true.  I refuse to go forward in this discussion until you acknowledge my central point regarding deductive validity.  

If I can present an argument for the existence of God, and the form is valid, and the premises are true, then you have to accept it; your personal epistemology will stand or fall upon this.  

Quote:
Your game (the theists game) is to play up 'logic' as if it's never been unreliable. That if something makes sense to us, then it is reality.

As if reality conformed to our minds.

As if reality behaved in a pure linear fashion.

As if by intuition we could accurately predict an a priori with absolute accuracy.

Why is it that instead of presenting a cogent argument, you just recite poetry?  Are your posts ghostwritten by Maya Angelou?  Stop trying to be profound and just address my argument; you just come off as weird when you post this way.  

Also, why can you not just type in paragraphs?  Why does each sentence have to be separated?  

To your point, logic has always been reliable.  There was never a time when it was possible for something to be and not be at the same time.  Issues of physics are empirical and are based upon observable physical behavior; no philosopher ever granted that it was logically necessary that whatever goes up must come down, as it can be perfectly conceived that something thrown upwards continues floating upwards.

Quote:
Under the circumstances, that's merely a idea that you believe is compatible with reality, but with no evidence.

The evidence is that I have sound arguments, such as the modal ontological argument, which conclude that he exists; not a single atheist here was able to point out a false premise.

Quote:
Listen, you don't even understand enough about how your premises are not 'workable' at all, let alone 'true'.

So, posturing that you are have devised an 'absolute certainty' of a god, is the most intellectually bankrupt assertion you could possibly make.

The best you could possibly come up with, is a synthetic approximation in your mind.

That's simply an idea.

But, then running around telling everyone that the idea in your mind is absolute reality because you imagine reality must conform to your thoughts, is being completely unrealistic.

You are rambling.  Wasn't there supposed to be a 500 word limit?  Can we get back to that please?  I don't have time for incoherent babble.

Quote:
However, you claim that you are immune to being wrong, because you use 'logic'.

If the premises are true, and the form is valid, then I am immune to being wrong.

Quote:
Human logic is derived from nature. It is contingent upon the universe.

Hahahaha, okay.

Tell me, where did we physically observe the law of non-contradiction?

Quote:
You mean that because something is on the news, and reported, it must be absolutely accurate?

That's news to me...

Ohhh, we are going to get into nihilism now.  Okay.  Not even the people in Japan know for sure that there was a tsunami, because everything may just be a figment of their imaginations, or perhaps it is just all a dream.  In fact, I might not even be debating with you right now.  This may actually be Watson from Jeopardy having a discussion with you.  Better yet, the world just started five minutes ago with the mere appearance of age.  Therefore, everything is personal opinion; there are no facts.  In fact (maybe I shouldn't say 'in fact'), it is your personal opinion that all past events are personal opinion, which means that it is not fact that past events are not facts. 

Brilliant!

I'm not even going to read the rest of your post.  I'm sure you've exceeded 500 words, and most of what you've written is incoherent babble.  I'm not going to spend 5 hours reading through your post to just repeat what I've been saying.

Please stick to the format, or I'm declaring myself the winner.


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Mr_Metaphysics wrote:Please

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

Please stick to the format, or I'm declaring myself the winner.

That's not being realistic.

 

Stop filibustering.

You claim you have a 'sound' argument.

I say you don't.

I say you have nothing more than a circular argument.

 

You've got data? Let's see it.

 

God is (x)?

 

Define x

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


Mr_Metaphysics (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
redneF wrote:Mr_Metaphysics

redneF wrote:

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

Please stick to the format, or I'm declaring myself the winner.

That's not being realistic.

 

Stop filibustering.

You claim you have a 'sound' argument.

I say you don't.

I say you have nothing more than a circular argument.

 

You've got data? Let's see it.

 

God is (x)?

 

Define x

I define 'God' as an eternal, immaterial, self-existent being.  

Other people may define God differently, in which case I am open to the idea that God, as defined by them, does not exist; however, I am committed to my belief that an eternal, immaterial, and self-existent being exists.

Okay so far?


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Mr_Metaphysics wrote:I

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

I define 'God' as an eternal, immaterial, self-existent being.  

Other people may define God differently, in which case I am open to the idea that God, as defined by them, does not exist; however, I am committed to my belief that an eternal, immaterial, and self-existent being exists.

Okay so far?

No.

That's not going to work. At all.

I didn't ask for your personal narrative, or personal assurances.

I asked for data. Something that is impartial.

If you want to use some form of 'logic' which is contingent on the premises being compatible with reality, then you need to present more than a subjective personal narrative, or 'approximation'.

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


Mr_Metaphysics (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
redneF wrote:Mr_Metaphysics

redneF wrote:

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

I define 'God' as an eternal, immaterial, self-existent being.  

Other people may define God differently, in which case I am open to the idea that God, as defined by them, does not exist; however, I am committed to my belief that an eternal, immaterial, and self-existent being exists.

Okay so far?

No.

That's not going to work. At all.

I didn't ask for your personal narrative, or personal assurances.

I asked for data. Something that is impartial.

If you want to use some form of 'logic' which is contingent on the premises being compatible with reality, then you need to present more than a subjective personal narrative, or 'approximation'.

Okay.  If we are going to discuss the existence of God, then I think it is important that we come to an agreement as to what this 'God' thing is.  I did not give you any personal narratives; the concepts of eternity, immateriality, and self-existence are not things that I made up.  You can read them in Aquinas, Augustine, Anselm, Plantinga, Craig, and any other apologist.  


When you say 'God', what do you mean?

What does the word 'God' mean to you?


Mind you, please answer this question in a way that is coherent; do not degenerate your post into this long, line by line, quasi-intellectual poem.  Do not try to impress everyone; just answer the question like a normal human being.


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Mr_Metaphysics wrote:Okay.

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

Okay.  If we are going to discuss the existence of God, then I think it is important that we come to an agreement as to what this 'God' thing is.  

I agree that it's important that we do this fairly. I don't think I'll ever change your mind, and I know you'll never change mine.

That's why you and I are 1 on 1 in this thread. Forget about those other threads, where I was over the top.

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:
I did not give you any personal narratives;

You said "I define God as...", and then went on to say "Other people may define God differently...".

How is that not personal?

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:
the concepts of eternity, immateriality, and self-existence are not things that I made up.  You can read them in Aquinas, Augustine, Anselm, Plantinga, Craig, and any other apologist.  

Well, there's a problem that's glaring to me, right there. William Lane Craig's 'narratives' are infinitely more 'elastic' than the ones from antiquity. He's always got an eye on the latest scientific findings, and doesn't seem to be so literal about biogenesis, and seems to readily accept that the universe began from a singularity, instead of from the book of genesis.

So, there's a huge disconnect in 'narratives'. I've watched dozens of hours of his debates. He doesn't actually win debates at all, in my opinion. He just argues from incredulity.

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:
When you say 'God', what do you mean?

What does the word 'God' mean to you?

I'm glad you asked. Because I really think it's relevant to any dialogue that I have with theists. I am about as 'pure' an atheist as you might find. I was born into a completely secular home, and so were both my parents. You will not find any crosses or any such religious or spiritual symbols or imagery, in any of my parents, grandparents, or aunts and uncles's homes. Not even any jewelry they might wear.

I went to Protestant School. They did not have 'religion' in school, nor any symbols, or imagery. The first time I heard of a god was from a kid who lived on our street, who mentioned god, and I was like, who? What? He told me what is was, and I was like, wha???

I asked my mother about it, and she just said that some people believe in ghosts and spirits and stuff like that, and even this was totally alien to me. It wasn't 'scary', it just didn't make sense. Invisible, or people who appear in smoke, was what I was thinking. It just didn't make sense.

I asked my mother if she 'believed' in these things, and her answer was simply, no.

My parents are European, and lived in many different areas. She told me that everywhere you go, there are different legends and folklores, about superstitious stuff.

And that was it. From then on, I noticed that people talked about gods, and angels, and devils, and stuff, and it was to me, all that 'smokey spirit' stuff that some people believe in, like Santa Claus, and the Easter Bunny, or how some kids talked to their dolls, or imaginary friends, and would claim they talk back to them.

I'm not trying to poke fun. That's honestly how I saw it. It was just something some people did, because it gave them some kind of entertainment, or value.

To me, it was a different version of 'the voice in your head', that I think most of us think we hear/sense/whatever, when we have 'internal dialogue'.

You might find it difficult to imagine anyone so isolated from the bible, but, I knew about as much about the bible, as I did about the Kuran, except that I had heard about the legend of the crucifixion of Jesus, who was a guy born in a manger, to a virgin mother, and 3 wise men, and he walked on water, and Christmas was to celebrate his birthday.

I had know idea that Christians came from Jews, until I was in my late 20's, when my Jewish accountant wish me 'Happy Holidays, and God bless', just before Christmas, as he shook my hand. I was shocked. I stood there like a deer in the headlights, not knowing what to say while this guy was shaking my hand.

I asked a friend who I knew went to church, how could he possibly say 'God bless', when God was a Christian thing???

I was that clueless. I didn't know that the great divide between the 2 factions was that the Jews are still waiting for the Messiah, and that the Christians believe that the Messiah was Jesus.

I still to this day, don't know what bible or holy book the Jews read.

Religion to me, was like Astrology. Something of a self indulgence. A little bit of harmless wishful thinking/spiritualism, that some people flirted with, and some people took way too seriously.

I thought it was more about a system of going to church, and people congregating as a means to spiritually 'connect' with a 'communal sense of good'. Kind of like an 'honour system' spiritual club, and that the gods and angels were simply 'symbolic'.

Sorry, I've rambled. But, I think you wanted an honest answer, in order to have honest dialogue.

That's how I viewed 'God', up until a not too long ago. I've never even been in a relationship with a woman who believed in God. Ever. It's never been a subject of dialogue.

I didn't even know that God was not simply some ghostly (I guess you could say 'physical') being, till recently.

It's all new to me. Like which religion believes that the world is on the backs of 2 turtles?

It all sounds like folklore to me. It never occured to me that people heavy duty debated this stuff at the level of Aristotle, or later sophistication. I simply didn't see how that was possible, till recently, when I saw the OA, and the KCA, and all that.

I'm an engineer. I'm disciplined to view things from a very 'neutral' view. No bias. Anything can be possible, unless it's incompatible with something else.

 

So, back to how you 'define' god.

Those 'qualities' are not 'attributes'. You cannot properly model anything with them, as there's no way to distinguish anything from nothing. Kinda of like a dimensionless number.

In the 'strictest' sense, those qualities are not 'workable'. They cannot do any 'work'. I'm not sure if you get what I mean when I say that. Only with constraints can you establish an amount of 'work', which then can be quantified, and 'scaled'.
 

And the strawman of 'I love my wife, can you measure that?', isn't going to work. I'll shred that to pieces.

If I'm told there's 1 God. That's a constraint right there. If I'm told that God is unlimited, that's an enormous problem, and very 'constraining', and logically contradicts that there can only be 1 entity.

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
One more thing.In another

One more thing.

In another thread, there's a guy who uses 'axioms' as 'inputs' into logic.

That's not going to work, either, unless one wants to argue that 'in my mind, axiomatically God exists, because it's logical to me'.

That's an intellectual dishonesty, and a completely bankrupt dialect between a polarized person, and a neutral person.

 

I don't care one way or the other, if there could be a god. It doesn't matter to me. It would not affect my life, because I think a god would only be like a 'Mother Nature' type thing, or like a Spinoza's God. Oblivious and impartial to all of nature, which would be entirely compatible with reality.

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7525
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
  I've given redneF and

  I've given redneF and his debate opponents access into the One on One debate forum.  Sorry I didn't get to it sooner.  Typical users aren't able to post in this forum, only people who have been granted entry.  This will help eliminate any future moderation issues in these threads.  


 

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


Mr_Metaphysics (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
redneF wrote:Mr_Metaphysics

redneF wrote:

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

Okay.  If we are going to discuss the existence of God, then I think it is important that we come to an agreement as to what this 'God' thing is.  

I agree that it's important that we do this fairly. I don't think I'll ever change your mind, and I know you'll never change mine.

That's why you and I are 1 on 1 in this thread. Forget about those other threads, where I was over the top.

Okay.

Quote:
I'm glad you asked. Because I really think it's relevant to any dialogue that I have with theists. I am about as 'pure' an atheist as you might find. I was born into a completely secular home, and so were both my parents. You will not find any crosses or any such religious or spiritual symbols or imagery, in any of my parents, grandparents, or aunts and uncles's homes. Not even any jewelry they might wear.

I went to Protestant School. They did not have 'religion' in school, nor any symbols, or imagery. The first time I heard of a god was from a kid who lived on our street, who mentioned god, and I was like, who? What? He told me what is was, and I was like, wha???

I asked my mother about it, and she just said that some people believe in ghosts and spirits and stuff like that, and even this was totally alien to me. It wasn't 'scary', it just didn't make sense. Invisible, or people who appear in smoke, was what I was thinking. It just didn't make sense.

I asked my mother if she 'believed' in these things, and her answer was simply, no.

My parents are European, and lived in many different areas. She told me that everywhere you go, there are different legends and folklores, about superstitious stuff.

And that was it. From then on, I noticed that people talked about gods, and angels, and devils, and stuff, and it was to me, all that 'smokey spirit' stuff that some people believe in, like Santa Claus, and the Easter Bunny, or how some kids talked to their dolls, or imaginary friends, and would claim they talk back to them.

I'm not trying to poke fun. That's honestly how I saw it. It was just something some people did, because it gave them some kind of entertainment, or value.

To me, it was a different version of 'the voice in your head', that I think most of us think we hear/sense/whatever, when we have 'internal dialogue'.

You might find it difficult to imagine anyone so isolated from the bible, but, I knew about as much about the bible, as I did about the Kuran, except that I had heard about the legend of the crucifixion of Jesus, who was a guy born in a manger, to a virgin mother, and 3 wise men, and he walked on water, and Christmas was to celebrate his birthday.

I had know idea that Christians came from Jews, until I was in my late 20's, when my Jewish accountant wish me 'Happy Holidays, and God bless', just before Christmas, as he shook my hand. I was shocked. I stood there like a deer in the headlights, not knowing what to say while this guy was shaking my hand.

I asked a friend who I knew went to church, how could he possibly say 'God bless', when God was a Christian thing???

I was that clueless. I didn't know that the great divide between the 2 factions was that the Jews are still waiting for the Messiah, and that the Christians believe that the Messiah was Jesus.

I still to this day, don't know what bible or holy book the Jews read.

Religion to me, was like Astrology. Something of a self indulgence. A little bit of harmless wishful thinking/spiritualism, that some people flirted with, and some people took way too seriously.

I thought it was more about a system of going to church, and people congregating as a means to spiritually 'connect' with a 'communal sense of good'. Kind of like an 'honour system' spiritual club, and that the gods and angels were simply 'symbolic'.

Sorry, I've rambled. But, I think you wanted an honest answer, in order to have honest dialogue.

That's how I viewed 'God', up until a not too long ago. I've never even been in a relationship with a woman who believed in God. Ever. It's never been a subject of dialogue.

I didn't even know that God was not simply some ghostly (I guess you could say 'physical') being, till recently.

It's all new to me. Like which religion believes that the world is on the backs of 2 turtles?

It all sounds like folklore to me. It never occured to me that people heavy duty debated this stuff at the level of Aristotle, or later sophistication. I simply didn't see how that was possible, till recently, when I saw the OA, and the KCA, and all that.

It sounds like you are wedded to presuppositions that were indoctrinated into you as a child.  Your parents were atheists, and they taught you to believe that God was like the voices in your head.  I mean no disrespect when I say this, but it does not sound like you've studied the issue from a mature perspective.  You are just getting into that now with your discovery of the debates going on, so I think now is a good time to discuss some integral concepts.

Quote:
I'm an engineer. I'm disciplined to view things from a very 'neutral' view. No bias. Anything can be possible, unless it's incompatible with something else.

I would disagree that you are neutral.  Everyone has presuppositions, including you.  You may not realize it now, but I think that will become more obvious as we engage in this discussion.

Quote:
So, back to how you 'define' god.

Those 'qualities' are not 'attributes'. You cannot properly model anything with them, as there's no way to distinguish anything from nothing. Kinda of like a dimensionless number.

What do you mean by 'attribute', and what do you mean by the phrase 'model anything with them'?

Quote:
In the 'strictest' sense, those qualities are not 'workable'. They cannot do any 'work'. I'm not sure if you get what I mean when I say that. Only with constraints can you establish an amount of 'work', which then can be quantified, and 'scaled'.

No.  What do you mean by 'work'?
 


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Mr_Metaphysics wrote: It

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:
It sounds like you are wedded to presuppositions that were indoctrinated into you as a child.  

What presuppositions?

I asked my mother a question after some kid on my street mentioned this person/thing he called God, about who/what 'god' was, and she told me some people believe in certain supernatural things, while others don't.

How is that a presupposition?

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:
Your parents were atheists, and they taught you to believe that God was like the voices in your head. 

Your reading comprehension skills aren't very good. You've misconstrued what I told you, and are jumping to conclusions.

I said that I was the one that concluded it must be similar to how people indulge in having conversations with things that don't talk back, ( be it a doll, a dog, a car, etc...) or with themselves ('So I said to myself...').

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:
I mean no disrespect when I say this, but it does not sound like you've studied the issue from a mature perspective. 

Your reading comprehension skills aren't very good. You've misconstrued what I told you, and are jumping to conclusions.

No offense, but, that's your 'predisposition'.

I'd only ever discussed it as a child with my mother, the 1 time. She never said 'there is no God'. I asked her if she believed that there was a God, and she said she did not, but that other people did. She was very clear on that, that 'different people believe different things', and that there are different legends and folklores when you go from country, to country.

I was clear on that.

However, my mother was superstitious, and believed in spirits, and ghosts, and poltergeists. She is 'convinced' she can feels them, at times. She has said so, on many, many occasions. She also believes that she can 'sense' supernatural things. Like when I was a kid, she thought that she could sense that I was in 'danger', before it happened (after she found out it happened), and 'project' that 'See? I felt that you were in danger!'.

When, the fact is, I was always a rambunctious kid, and was constantly being mischievous.

She and her friends read tea leaves. Well, they were 'taught' what was believed to be the method to read into the future. She would indulge every so often, when visiting a certain friend, in having her 'cards' read.

So, while not 'theistic', she was a 'supernaturalist', I guess you could say.

My father? Oblivious, to it all. Him and I have never had any dialogue about gods, or supernatural stuff. He doesn't pay any attention to anything but sports, and a little bit about politics. That's it. He's a very simple man.

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:
I would disagree that you are neutral. 

Do you strawman every single thing?? I describe something clearly, yet, you seem to misinterpret and misconstrue into something entirely different, anyways.

I said I'm 'disciplined to view things from a 'neutral' perspective', as an engineer.

We are discussing how you claim a God is 'engineered'. I'll analyze the data, from a 'neutral' perspective. Just like I would if I look at a schematic. I have no 'bias' when looking at a schematic, I've never seen before. How can I?

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:
 Everyone has presuppositions, including you. 

About what? Reverse engineering things?

I don't see how that's possible. It's non productive. If I 'presuppose' one way, or the other, I haven't actually done anything but presuppose. I can't 'bill' people for that.

 

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:
 

redneF wrote:
So, back to how you 'define' god.

Those 'qualities' are not 'attributes'. You cannot properly model anything with them, as there's no way to distinguish anything from nothing. Kinda of like a dimensionless number.

What do you mean by 'attribute'

The distinguishing quantitative attributes and variables/constants, that distinguish X from Y.

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:
 

and what do you mean by the phrase 'model anything with them'?

Build it in reality, or simulation (virtual reality), and 'test' it if 'works' or not.

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:
 

redneF wrote:

In the 'strictest' sense, those qualities are not 'workable'. They cannot do any 'work'. I'm not sure if you get what I mean when I say that. Only with constraints can you establish an amount of 'work', which then can be quantified, and 'scaled'.

No.  What do you mean by 'work'?

Whether X  can, (or likely could), 'produce' any results.

The universe is a time/space continuum, with particles, and forces, that do 'work'. The universe is not 'static'.

Our brains are like 'digital' storage devices. And are very, very, very slow.

Our brains 'sample' (record at a sample rate, and bit depth) and 'truncate'(edit) blocks of this (recorded) space/time continuum, in the 'buffer' of our brain. We usually refer to this 'sample' as an 'event'. 

Events are 'work' during a 'period' of the space/time continuum.

All 'work' is attributable to 'something' that is 'quantifiable', be it particles, energy, forces, etc...

So, we need the 'data'. Quantifiable data. Not 'qualitative' subjective human emotional values, like 'endless', 'limitless', 'timeless', 'everlasting',  etc. Those 'qualitative' terms are 'narratives', like 'breathtaking', 'beautiful', 'shocking', 'amazing', and are superfluous to accurately distinguishing the 'mechanics' of X at 'work'.

So, I'm not looking for what you, and/or others 'feel' what X is.

Just show us the data, of how it's thought this '1st cause' of the entire universe theory , 'works'.

The 'attributes', please.

 

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


Mr_Metaphysics (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
redneF wrote:Mr_Metaphysics

redneF wrote:

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:
It sounds like you are wedded to presuppositions that were indoctrinated into you as a child.  

What presuppositions?

I asked my mother a question after some kid on my street mentioned this person/thing he called God, about who/what 'god' was, and she told me some people believe in certain supernatural things, while others don't.

How is that a presupposition?

I said presuppositions that were indoctrinated into you as a child.  Your mother may have not told you outright, "God does not exist".  But, by your own admission, she clearly propagated to you in everyday conversation that she did not believe in these things.  When she told you that she did not believe that God existed, that God was 'supernatural', then obviously you are going to lump that together with other things that you find ridiculous, and you are going to carry that with you into adulthood (especially considering that, by your own admission, your exposure to the mature perspective was only recent).  

Quote:
I said that I was the one that concluded it must be similar to how people indulge in having conversations with things that don't talk back, ( be it a doll, a dog, a car, etc...) or with themselves ('So I said to myself...').

Which proves the point I just made.

You've had no exposure to philosophy, theology, or any mature perspective on this issue.  You are merely bringing your childhood indoctrination to this forum, and then propagating it as if that is what Christianity and God is.  When people attempt to bring this to you, you then go into long incoherent rants about 'personal narratives'.  How can you call yourself neutral if you are not willing to actually consider other perspectives on the issue, but rather simply dismiss them as 'personal narratives'?  

Quote:

However, my mother was superstitious, and believed in spirits, and ghosts, and poltergeists. She is 'convinced' she can feels them, at times. She has said so, on many, many occasions. She also believes that she can 'sense' supernatural things. Like when I was a kid, she thought that she could sense that I was in 'danger', before it happened (after she found out it happened), and 'project' that 'See? I felt that you were in danger!'.

Okay.  Now you are changing your story.  First you said:

"I asked my mother about it, and she just said that some people believe in ghosts and spirits and stuff like that, and even this was totally alien to me. It wasn't 'scary', it just didn't make sense. Invisible, or people who appear in smoke, was what I was thinking. It just didn't make sense.

I asked my mother if she 'believed' in these things, and her answer was simply, no."

Now you are telling me that she did believe in these things?

Maybe my reading comprehension is not the problem; maybe your storytelling ability is the problem.  Your mother told you that she did not believe in these things, yet you knew she believed in these things? Maybe you could have pointed that out.

Quote:
I said I'm 'disciplined to view things from a 'neutral' perspective', as an engineer.

Then I disagree; you are not neutral.

Quote:
The distinguishing quantitative attributes and variables/constants, that distinguish X from Y.

And how does this not apply to eternity, immateriality, and self-existence?  Some physicists theorize that the universe, in some way, may be eternal; some mind-body theorists believe mental states to be immaterial; self-existence just means 'existence not dependent upon anything else'.  

Clearly, these are not vacuous ideas; they are applied in other domains of discourse besides religion.

Quote:
Build it in reality, or simulation (virtual reality), and 'test' it if 'works' or not.

See?  You have presuppositions.  You presuppose, for instance, that something cannot be rightfully called 'an attribute' if it cannot be simulated or 'tested'.  That is a presupposition; you are assuming a particular paradigm, presuming that it is valid over other paradigms, and then building your entire argument off of this.  

I do not accept that you need to be able to 'build something in reality or simulation' in order for it to be attributed.  As I've stated, if I can formalize an argument with true premises and a valid form, then it does not matter whether it applies to any given methodology; you have to accept it whether you like or not.  Whether it comports with your methodology remains to be seen, but it will not matter if my argument meets the criteria specified earlier.

Quote:
Whether X  can, (or likely could), 'produce' any results.

Again, there's a presupposition.

What bearing does the possibility of producing results have on truth?  There are many truths that produce no results.  For example, it is true that some grandmother or other in Seattle, Washington has a jar of cookies in her pantry.  What results does this fact produce for me personally?  Do I not have any reason to believe simply because it is inconsequential for me?

Quote:
The universe is a time/space continuum, with particles, and forces, that do 'work'. The universe is not 'static'.

Our brains are like 'digital' storage devices. And are very, very, very slow.

Our brains 'sample' (record at a sample rate, and bit depth) and 'truncate'(edit) blocks of this (recorded) space/time continuum, in the 'buffer' of our brain. We usually refer to this 'sample' as an 'event'. 

Events are 'work' during a 'period' of the space/time continuum.

Presuppositions.

Quote:
All 'work' is attributable to 'something' that is 'quantifiable', be it particles, energy, forces, etc...

So, we need the 'data'. Quantifiable data. Not 'qualitative' subjective human emotional values, like 'endless', 'limitless', 'timeless', 'everlasting',  etc. Those 'qualitative' terms are 'narratives', like 'breathtaking', 'beautiful', 'shocking', 'amazing', and are superfluous to accurately distinguishing the 'mechanics' of X at 'work'.

Presuppositions.

Quote:
So, I'm not looking for what you, and/or others 'feel' what X is.

Just show us the data, of how it's thought this '1st cause' of the entire universe theory , 'works'.

The 'attributes', please.

I can give you the attributes, but they are not going to comport with your paradigm.  So until we resolve the issues with your paradigm, there's no reason for me to say anything about God.  You need to justify that what you say must necessarily apply in order for something to be real.


Mr_Metaphysics (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
I also need to point out

I also need to point out that my original question was 'What does God mean to you?'

You still haven't answered.

 


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Mr_Metaphysics wrote:redneF

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

redneF wrote:

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:
It sounds like you are wedded to presuppositions that were indoctrinated into you as a child.  

What presuppositions?

I asked my mother a question after some kid on my street mentioned this person/thing he called God, about who/what 'god' was, and she told me some people believe in certain supernatural things, while others don't.

How is that a presupposition?

I said presuppositions that were indoctrinated into you as a child.  

Do you even know what 'indoctrination' means? I told you she was did not believe that a god existed, but she told me that other people did. That's ambivalent. Uncertain, as to whether a god exists.

One could, or it could not. That's neutral.

And now you want to make the quantum leap to telling me I was indoctrinated with ambivalence and uncertainty about gods, during 1 conversation with my mother when I was like 5 or 6?

Indoctrination of skepticism. That's funny.

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:
Your mother may have not told you outright, "God does not exist".  But, by your own admission, she clearly propagated to you in everyday conversation that she did not believe in these things. 

No. The conversation about this 'god' legend, was just the 1 time. My recollections of the 1 conversation we have, when I was 5 or 6, are going to be fuzzy. It was a trivial thing to me.

If you ask me about the pair of skates I got for Christmas when I was 4, I could draw you the graphics on the box they were in, and what the ornaments on the tree were.

I could have written it more clearly, but, she did believe in certain 'supernatural' things. So, if anything, that could have had a greater impact on 'polarizing' me towards supernatural phenomenon.

 

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:
  considering that, by your own admission, your exposure to the mature perspective was only recent).

Nice try to put words in my mouth.

By my 'own admission', my 'exposure to mature perspective'...

You're funny...

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:
 You've had no exposure to philosophy, theology...

As a 5 or 6 yr old growing up in a secular home?

Of course not. Kids aren't mentally equipped to extrapolate such abstract concepts, at such an underdeveloped age. Do you think they have the capacity to properly assess those kinds of thoughts?

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:
 You are merely bringing your childhood indoctrination to this forum

I love it.

The 'heretic' knee jerk.

 

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:
 How can you call yourself neutral...

Because how the universe began, is not important to me. It's intriguing to try and contemplate it.

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:
 

redneF wrote:

I said I'm 'disciplined to view things from a 'neutral' perspective', as an engineer.

Then I disagree; you are not neutral.

That's subjective, and how you feel.

I don't care.

 

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:
 

redneF wrote:

The distinguishing quantitative attributes and variables/constants, that distinguish X from Y.

And how does this not apply to eternity, immateriality, and self-existence?  

It may, it may not. That's what we're discussing.

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:
 

Some physicists theorize that the universe, in some way, may be eternal;

Exactly.

No gods needed.

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:
 

some mind-body theorists believe mental states to be immaterial;

That's speculative pseudo science. Some of us call that 'Junk Science'.

If you can tell me about your 'mental state' prior to, and just after your birth, then I'd like to hear it.

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:
 

self-existence just means 'existence not dependent upon anything else'. 

Yes, I've heard the concept in the TAG argument. I've given it some thought, and I don't recall coming up with anything that I think could not be 'tied' into reality, while being 'not contingent' on anything else, other than gravity, electro magnetism, weak force, strong force, etc.

But none of those are categorized in any anthropomorphic manner.

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:
 

redneF wrote:

Build it in reality, or simulation (virtual reality), and 'test' it if 'works' or not.

See?  You have presuppositions.  

Ummm, no. It's called 'practicality'.

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:
 

You presuppose, for instance, that something cannot be rightfully called 'an attribute' if it cannot be simulated or 'tested'.  

Umm, no.

I 'understand' how the scientific method distinguishes between something that is tangible, and non tangible.

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:
 

That is a presupposition;

No. That is an understanding of the mechanics of reality.

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:
 

I do not accept that you need to be able to 'build something in reality or simulation' in order for it to be attributed. 

It doesn't matter how you feel.

What matters is how to distinguish between things than can and do work, and things that people merely feel 'could work'.

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:
 

As I've stated, if I can formalize an argument with true premises and a valid form, then it does not matter whether it applies to any given methodology; you have to accept it whether you like or not.  

No. You're incorrect. That's patently false.

I doubt you realize how many actual patents are 'granted' to claims, that have never been tested, or put to any 'practical' use. You could patent the Flying Spaghetti Monster, if you wanted to.

It doesn't make it any more 'real', or 'marketable'.

 

Look, here's how it works, in real life. All you have is an insistence that your 'ideas' are workable.

Nothing else. Stop projecting that you have anything 'worthwhile', because you do not. Like I've said before, you'd be a Nobel Prize winner of unprecedented caliber, if you did.

As it stands, you couldn't even get anyone other than a theist to give you more than 20 bucks to go away with your 'argument'.

Draw up a business plan, go to New York, and see how much venture capital you can drum up for your 'argument'.

Or the 'government' for that matter. And there are plently of 'God fearing' people there.

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:
 

redneF wrote:

Whether X  can, (or likely could), 'produce' any results.

Again, there's a presupposition.

What bearing does the possibility of producing results have on truth?  

To distinguish between reality and fantasy.

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:
 

redneF wrote:

So, I'm not looking for what you, and/or others 'feel' what X is.

Just show us the data, of how it's thought this '1st cause' of the entire universe theory , 'works'.

The 'attributes', please.

I can give you the attributes

Apparently, you cannot.

You discuss conceptual ideas of 'beings', and cannot demonstrate the mechanics by which these 'beings' could possibly interface with particles and energy in our universe.

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:
 

but they are not going to comport with your paradigm.  So until we resolve the issues with your paradigm

I see how this double standard works. When you have an idea, or 'paradigm', it's a robust paradigm, even though there's nothing more than conjecture, but when I say something that is unequivocal universal scientific method, then I'm just a guy who's paradigms are not properly structured, and need to be 'resolved'.

Nice try.

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:
 

there's no reason for me to say anything about God.  You need to justify that what you say must necessarily apply in order for something to be real.

The best defense of your 'argument' is an 'attack' on the scientific method.

Classic.

Science doesn't understand what you know, which is based on millenia old navel gazing. It tells me how little you know about astrophysics and cosmological geometry.

 

I've seen your 'Modal Argument'. It looks just like a 'topology'.

Electronic 'circuit diagrams' are topologies in a 'symbolic' form. Each 'symbol' has to be able to 'work' in order for the entire 'circuit' to 'work'.

If you cannot demonstrate any 1 'symbol' to work, then the 'diagram' is just a 'diagram' that may/may not work. It is highly suspect, based on that 1 kingpin.

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

I also need to point out that my original question was 'What does God mean to you?'

You still haven't answered.

That's a rhetorical question.

God is a word in the english language, that has many different connotations. It's a banal term.

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


Mr_Metaphysics (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
redneF wrote:Do you even

redneF wrote:

Do you even know what 'indoctrination' means? I told you she was did not believe that a god existed, but she told me that other people did. That's ambivalent. Uncertain, as to whether a god exists.

One could, or it could not. That's neutral.

And now you want to make the quantum leap to telling me I was indoctrinated with ambivalence and uncertainty about gods, during 1 conversation with my mother when I was like 5 or 6?

Indoctrination of skepticism. That's funny.

I do know what 'indoctrination' is.  'Indoctrinate', according to Webster, refers to the act of imbuing someone with partisan opinion.  By your own admission, you were raised in a secular household.  Your quote was,"I was born into a completely secular home, and so were both my parents."

You were also told by your mother that God belief was like belief in ghosts and spirits.  You made the following quotes:  "I asked my mother about it, and she just said that some people believe in ghosts and spirits and stuff like that";"I asked my mother if she believed in these things, and her answer was simply, no";"She told me that everywhere you go, there are different legends and folklores, about superstitious stuff";"And that was it.  From then on, I noticed people talked about gods, and angels, and devils, and stuff, and it was to me, all that smokey spirit stuff that some people believe in, like Santa Clause, and the Easter Bunny."  

How is that not indoctrination?

And by your own admission, any mature perspective on the issue is new to you.  As you stated, "It never occurred to me that people heavy duty debated this stuff at the level of Aristotle, or later sophistication. I simply didn't see how that was possible, till recently, when I saw the OA, and the KCA, and all that."

Quote:
No. The conversation about this 'god' legend, was just the 1 time. My recollections of the 1 conversation we have, when I was 5 or 6, are going to be fuzzy. It was a trivial thing to me.

It does not matter how many conversations you've had.  That has no bearing on my point, which is that this was indoctrinated into you as a child.  My parents may have told me only one time that God existed, but if from that one conversation God belief sounds reasonable to me, and religion is propagated in my household via various iconographic symbols, then I think you could call it indoctrination.  What's important, however, is that when you get older, you are invited to examine the issue in more depth and encouraged to pursue the issue in higher education so as to intellectually embrace your religion as an adult.

Quote:
Nice try to put words in my mouth.

By my 'own admission', my 'exposure to mature perspective'...

You're funny...

This is what came out of your mouth (or your fingers):  "It never occurred to me that people heavy duty debated this stuff at the level of Aristotle, or later sophistication. I simply didn't see how that was possible, till recently, when I saw the OA, and the KCA, and all that."

If you already understood God as a philosopher understands him, then how could you not be aware of the KCA or OA?

Quote:
Of course not. Kids aren't mentally equipped to extrapolate such abstract concepts, at such an underdeveloped age. Do you think they have the capacity to properly assess those kinds of thoughts?

No, but according to you there was no exposure to these things even into adulthood (your words were "till recently" ).

Quote:
Because how the universe began, is not important to me. It's intriguing to try and contemplate it.

It's not important to me either.  What's important to me is why the universe began, or more generally why anything exists at all.

Quote:
It may, it may not. That's what we're discussing.

Um, no.  This is what you said:  "In the strictest sense, those qualities are not 'workable'.  They cannot do any 'work'";"Those qualities are not attributes.  You cannot properly model anything with them".

First, you state emphatically that they are not attributes, now they may be attributes?  Make up your mind.

Quote:
Exactly.

No gods needed.

You're jumping ahead; focus on the current point:  You said that a concept such as 'eternity' is not an attribute, because it is not 'workable'; are you now willing to recant what you just stated, in light of the fact that many physicists invoke the idea in a different context?

Quote:
That's speculative pseudo science.

That's a presupposition.  You are assuming that mind-body philosophers only engage in junk science, based on your presuppositions about methodologies.  I told you that your lack of neutrality will become obvious as we engage in the discussion, and it is happening right now.

Quote:
If you can tell me about your 'mental state' prior to, and just after your birth, then I'd like to hear it.

Focus on the topic please.  Do not digress.  (Although I could easily rip this point to shreds.)

Quote:
Yes, I've heard the concept in the TAG argument. I've given it some thought, and I don't recall coming up with anything that I think could not be 'tied' into reality, while being 'not contingent' on anything else, other than gravity, electro magnetism, weak force, strong force, etc.

But none of those are categorized in any anthropomorphic manner.

Please focus on the topic.  Stop digressing.  Self-existence has nothing to do with TAG.

Quote:
Ummm, no. It's called 'practicality'.

Presupposition:  You are assuming that truth is based on practicality.

Quote:
Umm, no.

I 'understand' how the scientific method distinguishes between something that is tangible, and non tangible.

Presupposition: You are assuming that scientific method is the only valid producer of truth.

Quote:
No. That is an understanding of the mechanics of reality.

You are presupposing, without qualification, that those are indeed the mechanics of reality; you have yet to justify any of this.

Quote:
It doesn't matter how you feel.

What matters is how to distinguish between things than can and do work, and things that people merely feel 'could work'.

What matters are the facts, and you've yet to justify your presuppositions as fact.  You've done nothing but make assertions.

Quote:
No. You're incorrect. That's patently false.

Give me an example of an argument with true premises, a valid form, but a false conclusion.  I'm waiting.

Quote:
I doubt you realize how many actual patents are 'granted' to claims, that have never been tested, or put to any 'practical' use. You could patent the Flying Spaghetti Monster, if you wanted to.

It doesn't make it any more 'real', or 'marketable'.

There is not a single sound argument you can give that will prove the existence of the FSM--not a single one.  If you disagree, go ahead and try making one.

 

Quote:
Look, here's how it works, in real life.

No.  I'm not interested in your assertions.  Please provide evidence that your methodology is more valid than mine; can you give an example where a true conclusion is not produced by true premises and a valid form?

Quote:
All you have is an insistence that your 'ideas' are workable.

Nothing else. Stop projecting that you have anything 'worthwhile', because you do not. Like I've said before, you'd be a Nobel Prize winner of unprecedented caliber, if you did.

Um, no.  You are making yet another presupposition that the God issue has been declared inconclusive, when in fact most people in the world have no issue believing in God.  You, sir, are in the minority.  The God issue, as far as we are concerned, is resolved; to deny the existence to God, for us, is like denying the existence of trees.  Certainly, you can make the case that trees do not really exist, just as you attempted to scrape the bottom of the barrel in order to prove that Tsunami didn't happen in Japan, but your efforts will be in vain.  

You've offered nothing of substance so far.  All you've done is make assertions, presuming your methodology to be valid without qualification.  Do you have anything of substance to offer--anything at all?

Quote:
To distinguish between reality and fantasy.

Distinguishing between reality and fantasy is what we are debating; what bearing does the possibility of producing results have on truth?  If I can present a sound argument for God, then I will have proven God to be real.  

Quote:
Apparently, you cannot.

You discuss conceptual ideas of 'beings', and cannot demonstrate the mechanics by which these 'beings' could possibly interface with particles and energy in our universe.

It's not necessary to know 'mechanics' in order to know that something exists.  People are able to experience God in their own lives without knowing the mechanics by which he manifested himself to them.  Furthermore, if God created the universe, then it is unreasonable to presume that his mechanics would comport with those that are predicated of this universe alone.

Quote:
I see how this double standard works. When you have an idea, or 'paradigm', it's a robust paradigm, even though there's nothing more than conjecture, but when I say something that is unequivocal universal scientific method, then I'm just a guy who's paradigms are not properly structured, and need to be 'resolved'.

Nice try.

It's not a double standard.  I'm asking you to justify your presuppositions.  Are you able to do that or not?

Quote:
The best defense of your 'argument' is an 'attack' on the scientific method.

Classic.

Science doesn't understand what you know, which is based on millenia old navel gazing. It tells me how little you know about astrophysics and cosmological geometry.

I didn't attack the scientific method.  I asked you to justify that it is the only producer of truth.

Quote:
That's a rhetorical question.

How the hell is it a rhetorical question?!  What does 'God' mean to you?

Why would that be such a difficult question?????

Do you really need to obfuscate this much?  Just answer the damn question!  


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Mr_Metaphysics wrote:I

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

I didn't attack the scientific method. 

I'm approaching this problem using the scientific method, and you asserted that it's not up to the standards necessary to determine how to solve the problem.

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:
 I asked you to justify that it is the only producer of truth.

You really don't get it it, do you?

Everything in the universe 'works', somehow. A rock 'works'. It also has 'potential', it can be seen as potential energy, depending on it's specific density, and mass, due to gravity. Even just sitting there on the ground. It has potential associated with it. We can 'calculate it'. Assert that to 99% of people, and they'll go "Huh?". Ask scientists, and you'll get a much different percentage who do get it, right off the bat.

The scientific method, is the only method that works reliably at accurately determining how things work, during or after the 'work' has occurred.

It's how we pattern planes, trains, and cars to 'work'.

How else could we know they'll work?

Things we've never seen before, show US, how they work. We don't logically determine how things that we have never seen, and have never been seen by US, work. We can only try and predict something we have never seen before.

 

It doesn't matter what we 'think' (logically) should work, or what we 'feel' (logically) should work. It's whether something works, or not.

If (x) works, it's because it does. Not because we thought (x) 'should' (logically) work as we thought. (x) working is not contingent on our thoughts, beliefs, or feelings.

Something either works. Or something doesn't work. If it works. It works. Saying it's 'true' when, or after it works, is superfluous.

 

So telling me you have an equation that is based on what is 'true', means nothing. And simply saying something 'works', or 'exists' because it's logical that it should work, or should exist, simply tells me you think, but do not know for sure.

Plain and simple.

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

redneF wrote:

That's a rhetorical question.

How the hell is it a rhetorical question?!  

Duhhh...

How many gods and goddesses legends and folklores have been talked about, and written about, by different cultures and civilizations?

Thousands.

How many spirits and ghosts have been talked about, and written about, by different cultures and civilizations?

Thousands.

How many sea monsters and beasts have been talked about, and written about, by different cultures and civilizations?

I'm thinking only hundreds of those, but maybe there are thousands of those, too.

 

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:
What does 'God' mean to you?

I'm not trying to make you mental.

It IS a rhetorical question, to me.

It's like asking "What does the Loch Ness Monster mean to you?"

It's something that's talked about, but not something I think is likely to exist.

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:
Why would that be such a difficult question?????

It's not. I'm not trying to mess with you.

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:
Do you really need to obfuscate this much? 

I'm not a 'theist'. I've never seen anything of the sort, or had any revelations. The legends and folklores are just that, to me.

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:
Just answer the damn question!  

Tell me honestly, what was wrong with my answer?

It's like asking me "What does 'Unicorn' mean to you?"

It's a 'legend and a folklore' to me.

If I were to ask you, "What does 'Unicorn' mean to you?", or "What does 3 headed fire breathing dragon mean to you?", (which I'm going to assume you do not believe exist) what would your answers be?

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


Mr_Metaphysics (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
redneF wrote:I'm approaching

redneF wrote:

I'm approaching this problem using the scientific method, and you asserted that it's not up to the standards necessary to determine how to solve the problem.

Assuming that the scientific method doesn't apply in all places at all times is 'attacking' it?  Is your devotion to science so fervent that any suggestion of its inapplicability in some areas constitutes for you some sort of attack?  

Wow.  If I ever needed further justification for the idea that naturalism is a religion, you have just provided it.

Quote:
You really don't get it it, do you?

Everything in the universe 'works', somehow. A rock 'works'. It also has 'potential', it can be seen as potential energy, depending on it's specific density, and mass, due to gravity. Even just sitting there on the ground. It has potential associated with it. We can 'calculate it'. Assert that to 99% of people, and they'll go "Huh?". Ask scientists, and you'll get a much different percentage who do get it, right off the bat.

The scientific method, is the only method that works reliably at accurately determining how things work, during or after the 'work' has occurred.

Your definition of 'work' (seen here: http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/29082#comment-337041) was the production of results.  

My point is, that work is not part of the debate of whether something exists; the question is not whether God can produce results, but rather the question is whether God exists.  This is not an issue of production; this is an issue of truth.

Many truths, such as the fact that some grandmother or other in Seattle has a box of cookies in her pantry, produce no results whatsoever for me.  

So, even if it is true that the scientific method is the best way to determine how something produces results, the point is inconsequential to this debate.  Even if God produced no results, he may still exist.

Quote:
It's how we pattern planes, trains, and cars to 'work'.

How else could we know they'll work?

Things we've never seen before, show US, how they work. We don't logically determine how things that we have never seen, and have never been seen by US, work. We can only try and predict something we have never seen before.

Again, I don't care how God works.  That is not a question that I am interested in.  What I care about is what God wants.

Quote:
It doesn't matter what we 'think' (logically) should work, or what we 'feel' (logically) should work. It's whether something works, or not.

If (x) works, it's because it does. Not because we thought (x) 'should' (logically) work as we thought. (x) working is not contingent on our thoughts, beliefs, or feelings.

Something either works. Or something doesn't work. If it works. It works. Saying it's 'true' when, or after it works, is superfluous.

So telling me you have an equation that is based on what is 'true', means nothing. And simply saying something 'works', or 'exists' because it's logical that it should work, or should exist, simply tells me you think, but do not know for sure.

Plain and simple.

If I can formulate a sound argument whose conclusion is such that it says something works, then I will have proven something works.

But I'm just going to pull the rug out from under you right now, because you've totally set up yourself for this:

You define 'work' as the production of results.  You claim that the scientific method is the best way to determine what works.

Did you use the scientific method in order to determine that the scientific method works?

If not, then you are utilizing something less than reliable in order to determine what works, thus refuting your previous point; if so, then your reasoning is circular, as you are presupposing it works in order to prove that it works.

So, you are stuck.  You've trapped yourself with a self-refuting claim.  

Quote:
Duhhh...

How many gods and goddesses legends and folklores have been talked about, and written about, by different cultures and civilizations?

Thousands.

Do I care?

I'm asking what 'God' means to YOU--not to anyone else but yourself.

Quote:
It's like asking "What does the Loch Ness Monster mean to you?"

Umm, that's easy.  The Loch Ness Monster is an animal residing in some lake in Ireland.  I could go into further details, but I don't feel like going through Wikipedia.

Quote:
Tell me honestly, what was wrong with my answer?

It's like asking me "What does 'Unicorn' mean to you?"

A unicorn is a horse with one horn; what is so difficult about that?

 


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Are you Matt Slick? Because

Are you Matt Slick? Because you 'argue' just like him.

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

redneF wrote:

I'm approaching this problem using the scientific method, and you asserted that it's not up to the standards necessary to determine how to solve the problem.

Assuming that the scientific method doesn't apply in all places at all times is 'attacking' it? 

You 'presuppose' that the scientific method would not be sufficient, without sufficient evidence to know either way, otherwise you would 'prove' that it's not sufficient, and not just 'argue'.

So, give 'evidence' to back your 'presupposition', and you will have a FACT.

Right now, you do not have the 'facts'. Just a 'circular argument'.

 

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

My point is, that work is not part of the debate of whether something exists; the question is not whether God can produce results, but rather the question is whether God exists.  This is not an issue of production; this is an issue of truth.

You just keep arguing in circles. If you had evidence, you would 'know' the truth (x). But you don't have evidence, so you substitute man made 'definitions' (narratives) (z) instead.

Simply stating x=z, means you've made a statement that x=z.

Simply stating 'it's true', is simply stating 'it's true'.

Both of those are circular.

Just words written down.

If you can write it, then you can write it.

 

So what?

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

Even if God produced no results, he may still exist.

He may produce results. He may produce no results. He may exist. He may not exist. He may work. He may not work.

Blah, blah, blah....

 

Still waiting for 'proof'

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

Again, I don't care how God works. 

Then you're an atheist. No? 

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

That is not a question that I am interested in.  

I'm not either. That makes us the same in regards to mythology of gods.

Just for the record, I'm an atheist.

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

What I care about is what God wants.

You're getting ahead of yourself. You have no evidence, or proof that any of them could ever have existed, in the first place.

Otherwise, you'd have shown your evidence.

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

If I can formulate a sound argument whose conclusion is such that it says something works, then I will have proven something works.

You keep going in circles.

Writing words down, is just writing words down.

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:
But I'm just going to pull the rug out from under you right now, because you've totally set up yourself for this:

No, you're not. You're just going to argue. Pulling the rug out would happen if you falsified what I've said.

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:
You define 'work' as the production of results.  You claim that the scientific method is the best way to determine what works.

The best method I know of, yes.

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:
Did you use the scientific method in order to determine that the scientific method works?

Rhetorical question. It doesn't merit an answer. It's absurd.

I could ask you 'Did you use the truth, to determine the truth?"

What are you arguing? That something other than the scientific method produces more reliable predictions and outcomes?

Find one, and tell the world.

This will be front page news...

 

 

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:
So, you are stuck.  You've trapped yourself with a self-refuting claim. 

Show us a better method, and you'll have falsified my claims.

I'll wait here...

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:
I'm asking what 'God' means to YOU--not to anyone else but yourself.

It's mythology. Legend. Folklore.

 

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:
A unicorn is a horse with one horn; what is so difficult about that?

Nothing.

But a unicorn is just mythology, to me.

So, whenever you are done 'arguing', let me know. Because I'd really like to see you prove anything...

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


Mr_Metaphysics (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
redneF wrote:Are you Matt

redneF wrote:

Are you Matt Slick? Because you 'argue' just like him.

Is that why you don't have the balls to call him and debate him live?  You display a lot of braggadocio here, but you definitely wouldn't act this way in real life.  Haha

Quote:
You 'presuppose' that the scientific method would not be sufficient, without sufficient evidence to know either way, otherwise you would 'prove' that it's not sufficient, and not just 'argue'.

So, give 'evidence' to back your 'presupposition', and you will have a FACT.

Right now, you do not have the 'facts'. Just a 'circular argument'.

You are telling *me* what is sufficient to prove a being the metaphysical perspective of whom, by your own admission, you've only recently encountered?  You couldn't even define what you mean by 'God'; how can you begin to tell me what is and is not adequate?  

I love it when atheists plead ignorance whilst boasting that God, if real, ought to be this and ought to be that.  Why not actually humble yourself and learn something for once in your life?

I'm not going to give any evidence until we get over this hurdle.  I've already shown your position to be self-refuting; please accept that not all factual questions are answered in the same way, that the production of results is not pertinent to questions of truth, and that truth itself may be produced by something other than the scientific method.  I'm not going to hand hold you through your presuppositions and only prove whatever comports with them.  

Quote:
You just keep arguing in circles. If you had evidence, you would 'know' the truth (x). But you don't have evidence, so you substitute man made 'definitions' (narratives) (z) instead.

Simply stating x=z, means you've made a statement that x=z.

Simply stating 'it's true', is simply stating 'it's true'.

Both of those are circular.

Just words written down.

If you can write it, then you can write it.

Where have I stated any of those things?  I've yet to present an argument in this thread.

Quote:
You're getting ahead of yourself. You have no evidence, or proof that any of them could ever have existed, in the first place.

Otherwise, you'd have shown your evidence.

I'm not showing you anything until you accept being wrong and correct yourself.

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:
Did you use the scientific method in order to determine that the scientific method works?

Quote:
Rhetorical question. It doesn't merit an answer. It's absurd.

HA HA HA HA

You just totally got OWNED!  I'm sorry.  There is no way I lose this debate.  I'm clearly the winner here, and I don't boast that often.  But you just totally dodged the question.
 

 

 

 


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Mr_Metaphysics wrote:redneF

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

redneF wrote:

Are you Matt Slick? Because you 'argue' just like him.

Is that why you don't have the balls to call him and debate him live?  You display a lot of braggadocio here, but you definitely wouldn't act this way in real life. 

Ummm, this is real life, dude.

I've told you in your other thread, you can invite him here, and I'll glady debate him 1 on 1.

No problem.

I dare him to.

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:
You are telling *me* what is sufficient to prove a being the metaphysical perspective of whom, by your own admission, you've only recently encountered?  You couldn't even define what you mean by 'God'

You are the one making the claim. It's up to you to define what your claim is.

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:
I'm not going to give any evidence

Then you can't prove anything, except that you are not going to give any evidence.

So, you were just here to posture?

 

 

Quote:
Mr_Metaphysics wrote:
Did you use the scientific method in order to determine that the scientific method works?

redneF wrote:
Rhetorical question. It doesn't merit an answer. It's absurd.

HA HA HA HA

You just totally got OWNED!

No, I demonstrated how it's a stupid question.

 

Now, where is you 'better' method, than science?

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:
  I'm clearly the winner here

I don't see any victory.

Many people believe gods are mythological. You haven't falsified that gods are not mythological.

Many people believe science is the best method to distinguish between reality and not reality. You haven't falsified that science is the best method to distinguish between reality and not reality.

 

You seem to think you could prove that gods are not mythological. And apparently you think there is a better method at reliably distinguishing between reality and not reality.

What's holding you back?

 

 

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


Mr_Metaphysics (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
redneF wrote:Ummm, this is

redneF wrote:

Ummm, this is real life, dude.

I've told you in your other thread, you can invite him here, and I'll glady debate him 1 on 1.

Of course you want it to be here.  Live debate would require you to think of your feet.  Here, you can research your answers and get coaching from other atheists via PM.  

This is not real life; this is you hiding behind a veil of text.  

Quote:
Then you can't prove anything, except that you are not going to give any evidence.

So, you were just here to posture?

Now you are being dishonest, though this does not shock me.  You are so desperate that you have to chop my sentences in half and quote them out of context?  You know very well that "I'm not going to give any evidence" was not the complete sentence.

The debate topic is 'personal reasoning'.  You chose this topic, not me.  Do not choose a particular topic if you are expecting me to go into something completely different.  

Quote:
No, I demonstrated how it's a stupid question.

"Rhetorical question. It doesn't merit an answer. It's absurd" demonstrates that it is stupid?  Simply declaring something to be stupid makes it so?  

Okay. Watch this:

You are stupid.

See?  I said it.  Now I've demonstrated that you are stupid.

It was a perfectly legitimate question, and you dodged it.  Therefore, I am going to declare myself the winner of this debate.  I've shown your position to be self-refuting; thus, there is no need for me to go on.

Quote:
Now, where is you 'better' method, than science?

I told you:  I use a priori reasoning in order to prove that God exists.  I am not saying it is 'better' than science; I'm saying that in certain domains of discourse, the scientific method does not apply.  Somehow, you construed this as an attack on your religion on naturalism, but I'm merely stating that science is not appropriate for everything, only some things.

Quote:
I don't see any victory.

I won.  I've exposed your position as self-refuting, such that you were force to dodge my bolded question.  There is no need for me to go on, and this will be my last response to you.

Quote:
Many people believe gods are mythological. You haven't falsified that gods are not mythological.

Many people believe science is the best method to distinguish between reality and not reality. You haven't falsified that science is the best method to distinguish between reality and not reality.

Now you are moving the goalposts.  You said the debate topic was personal reasoning; now you are saying that it is proving that God exists.

Then, you spoke about what 'works', or produces results.  Now you are talking about what distinguishes reality from unreality.  

You are an ADHD child with the inability to focus on one particular thing at a time.  This was a no contest.

 

This debate is over.  I win.  There will be no more replies to you here.


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Mr_Metaphysics wrote:redneF

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

redneF wrote:

Ummm, this is real life, dude.

I've told you in your other thread, you can invite him here, and I'll glady debate him 1 on 1.

Of course you want it to be here. 

Yes. It's only logical.

In a 1 on 1 debate, you need a level playing field.

Here, he can't talk over me.

He's not in control of anything but himself. He cannot simply declare himself the winner, and walk away when he's not actually won.

The record will stand that he didn't actually win, and his idiocy will be permanent record. He can't 'delete' anything he's committed himself to, in writing.

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:
Live debate would require you to think of your feet. 

He doesn't have the scientific knowledge I do, to understand that his analogs are based on fallacies. So, much like you, you can't debate me by 'thinking on your feet'.

You'd both need all the time in the world.

You still don't even understand that I haven't even dropped the hammer on you.

 

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

redneF wrote:

Then you can't prove anything, except that you are not going to give any evidence.

So, you were just here to posture?

Now you are being dishonest

 

You see? That's not going to work in a written debate. Anyone who can read, is going to know how full of it you are, and I don't need you to concede you've made a false allegation, I just need to demonstrate it to the reader, and move on...

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

 You are so desperate that you have to chop my sentences in half and quote them out of context?  You know very well that "I'm not going to give any evidence" was not the complete sentence.

So, you're ready to give me your evidence? It seemed like you were foreshadowing that you were going to take your ball and go home, no matter how you slice it.

And I was correct.

You don't have squat, so you'll throw a little tantrum as a red herring.

Bully for you.

Take your empty ball and go home.

I demonstrated how your definintions are useless, to determine anything. There's no 'logic' to your 'logic'. It's a presupposition. Nothing more.

Any idiot can generate as many 'False Positives' they want. It doesn't make it more than 50/50 odds of correct/incorrect.

NO better than a coin toss. Look up Astrology for all the evidence you need, to understand 'False Positives'.

Look up Boole's Inequality Theorum, and educate yourself on the "Null Hypothesis', to put yourself better understand that symbols on a piece of paper, are just symbols on a piece of paper.

Your logical IOU's are not universal law.

They only have currency with people who suffer from the same delusion you do.

Your 'incantations' are a con job.

You 'agreeing' with yourself, and 'disagreeing' with others, is not 'proof' of anything but you opinion. Duhh...

 

Arguments from authority and arguments from incredulity are for petulant infantiles.

 

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

redneF wrote:
No, I demonstrated how it's a stupid question.

"Rhetorical question. It doesn't merit an answer. It's absurd" demonstrates that it is stupid?  Simply declaring something to be stupid makes it so?  

You must have short term memory loss. I didn't just 'say' it's absurd and leave it at that, I demonstrated why it was absurd. Remember? (rhetorical question)

 

"Rhetorical question. It doesn't merit an answer. It's absurd.

I could ask you 'Did you use the truth, to determine the truth?"

What are you arguing? That something other than the scientific method produces more reliable predictions and outcomes?

Find one, and tell the world.

This will be front page news..."

 

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

It was a perfectly legitimate question

So, if anyone disagrees with you, they've lost?

Ya, that's pretty Slick...lol

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

and you dodged it.  

No, I turned you over on your head.

Your histrionics don't make you the winner.

Sorry, Slick.

Either you're right, or you're wrong. Either your argument is sound, or it's a turd, your indignations notwithstanding...

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

Therefore, I am going to declare myself the winner of this debate. 

Yes, you've won at proving you don't know what you're talking about.

Probably because of your 'indoctrinations' to 'presuppose' you're always the winner...lol

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

I've shown your position to be self-refuting; thus, there is no need for me to go on.

And how did you arrive at that? You didn't use your truth to determine the absolute truth, did you?

Because that would be stupid...

 

 

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

redneF wrote:
Now, where is you 'better' method, than science?

I told you:  I use a priori reasoning in order to prove that God exists.  I am not saying it is 'better' than science; I'm saying that in certain domains of discourse, the scientific method does not apply.  Somehow, you construed this as an attack on your religion on naturalism, but I'm merely stating that science is not appropriate for everything, only some things.

Oh wow.

Cool!

Now, tell me if there are aliens, or life on other planets in the universe, because us 'scientists' don't know that one yet.

Ya, you flat earthers can figure out logically how myths are real with your "What goes up, must come down!!" LOLgic.

Scientists and Technicians are just in awe of Metaphysics and Metatechnologies.

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:
Now you are moving the goalposts.  

Excuses, excuses.

Your continued presence here, is neither here nor there, in this debate. This is public record, and I'll use it as an educational tool for other atheists, to understand the 'house of cards' structure of the 'fantasy' logic that underpins all the 'apologists'.

You're toast, one way or the other, Slick...

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Since my opponent has copped

Since my opponent has copped out via his red herring 'exit strategy' that I outlined earlier, I'll be carryingon without him, and demonstrate that it was just to attempt to end the inevitable humiliation he was not going to be able to avoid.

He's actually done a great service to this thread, as I do not have to go in circles with him, and I can focus on reverse engineering the 'logical fallacies', and pulling all the 'kingpins' on the 'trainwreck' arguments.

A few things earlier in the thread that are important, that I'd like to touch on again, and make clear.

I'll still simulate 1 on 1 dialogue, to avoid a dissonance should my opponent wish to re-engage.


Mr_Metaphysics wrote:
  Okay.  Then please recant your statement that it was invented.

 

I never stated that it WAS invented.


If you'd only read what I did say:

"I was under the impression that the formalized origins of 'logic' were historically thought to be a Greek

discipline invented by either Plato, or Aristotle.

No?

In any event, I don't know why historians would even try and attribute that 'logic' was 'invented'. Intuition

and structured reasoning and problem solving obviously has been around much longer than that."


Mr_Metaphysics wrote:
  You just said logic was a human invention

Obviously, this was a false allegation.

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:
  and that true and false are subjective terms.


Don't blame me. It's religious people who have different 'beliefs' that are incompatible with other religions' beliefs, and they all call their 'beliefs' 'truths'.
The term is completely abused and bastardized, and has become banal. It carries no weight anymore.
Very much like 'honest', or 'sorry'.

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:
  Who are you to speak of semantic fallacies?

Someone who's up to speed, obviously...

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

redneF wrote:

So, back to how you 'define' god.

Those 'qualities' are not 'attributes'. You cannot properly model anything with them, as there's no way to

distinguish reality from fantasy. Kinda of like a dimensionless number.

What do you mean by 'attribute', and what do you mean by the phrase 'model anything with them'?


Reality 'works' a certain way. Most people have such a weak understanding of the scientific method, that they simply underestimate the vast distinction between scientific 'understanding' and careful observation.

The 'overall' approach to the 'argument for a god' is not a sound approach, and pales in comparison to the rigours of science.


This is undeniable.

The 'arguments' are not sound, for the simple reason that they are built on naked assertions (that I will go through in subsequent posts), from the very, very beginning.


If you haven't falsified the very things that could cause your reconstruction of reality to collapse, you clearly demonstate that being incorrect, innacurate, mistaken, and producing 'false positives' is something you can afford the luxury of, and are willing to adopt a false positive as legitimate.


The obvious real life parallel are the 'false positive' paternities of children, where it as 'assumed' that just because a woman had sexual intercourse with man (A) and had a baby, was no reason to assume that the baby was not the result of a man other than man (A).


Prior to science, all man (A) could really do was 'believe' and have 'faith' that the paternity of the child was his.


Clearly, this absolutely, and unequivocally certifies that 'belief' and 'faith' , and 'logic' based on unfalsified assumptions is an abhorrent method of 'logically' determining paternity, or 'truth' of absolute 'origins'.

Only a fool would suspend skepticism.

And many a fool who thought they were 'correct' and knew the 'truth', have walked the earth, and opened their mouths and removed all doubt of their inanity.

 

The ridicule of my opponent will continue...

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris