Originally posted by Cornell
View Post
Yes and this simplicity came about from a necessary rational being that entails no parts, so I agree with you. God is definitely simpler than whatever in the world you pose as an explanation.
In other words you don’t know, because your explanation fails in explanatory scope and power. I mean is this the best you got?
With respect to the very first increment, how did it prevent an increase in frequency, and what happened? All your saying is godlessevolutiondidit, so I don’ t need to educate myself, because your buddies don’t have any clue what happened. I don’t know isn’t an education it’s a cop-out, well I have simple explanation, there is a necessary rational being, this rational being made us inherit rationality from it. We been told about this hundreds of years ago, but people just don’t want to listen because their emotions get involved. Imago dei, it’s so simple that I see no reason why people can deny it and tell me with a straight face how this nonrational substance created rationality by a natural selection wasn’t rational.
With respect to the very first increment, how did it prevent an increase in frequency, and what happened? All your saying is godlessevolutiondidit, so I don’ t need to educate myself, because your buddies don’t have any clue what happened. I don’t know isn’t an education it’s a cop-out, well I have simple explanation, there is a necessary rational being, this rational being made us inherit rationality from it. We been told about this hundreds of years ago, but people just don’t want to listen because their emotions get involved. Imago dei, it’s so simple that I see no reason why people can deny it and tell me with a straight face how this nonrational substance created rationality by a natural selection wasn’t rational.
I’m not saying ‘I don’t know, therefore God’ what I am saying is that “God provides the best explanation because the alternatives are garbage and can’t do the job.” Snip.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-...o-biology.html
We are rational creatures, we evolved via Natural Selection. There's so much data already and scientific research, in areas like neurobiology, sociobiology, human psychology, emergence, evolution, general biology, physics, can actually and will provide real answers. So why would anyone bother with speculative metaphysics from the pre-scientific era?
In other words you don’t know, and all you have to work with is, ‘god of the gaps’ as that’s your saving grace for everything you don’t know, because that ultimately makes atheism look like the correct view on the nature of reality.
I can’t help the fact that you’re too lazy to look at the jargon, I can’t help the fact that you’re so hellbent on doing everything possible to deny the obvious fact that Theism is true.
Why don’t you just cut the chase and just say ‘ I don’t want a God to exist, this is why I’m happy with saying “ I don’t know, but I’m sure my silly atheist friends will find out one day’
This is getting ridiculous, you have absolutely nothing to work with. I’ve asked you dozens of times for an explanation of how evolutiondidit and all you do is give me the definition of evolution as if that’s going to explain it away.
This is getting ridiculous, you have absolutely nothing to work with. I’ve asked you dozens of times for an explanation of how evolutiondidit and all you do is give me the definition of evolution as if that’s going to explain it away.
God helps my case, because God is a necessary being, what exactly is your alternative. Like what am I looking for in an atheistic universe, everything you guys come up with is so ad-hoc to the evidence.
Is a godless universe supposed to necessary? Is it supposed to be contingent? Is it supposed to magically create rationality ex nihilo from nonrationality? How does it work?
Is a godless universe supposed to necessary? Is it supposed to be contingent? Is it supposed to magically create rationality ex nihilo from nonrationality? How does it work?
It doesn’t invoke special pleading because the alternative doesn’t have those properties. That’s like saying it’s special pleading to say that Lebron James is a greater basketball player than the average joe, because the average joe doesn’t possess the property of being talented at basketball.
SNIP.
So now comes the question that the godless never answer, and then try and downplay it as if there is no reason to answer, and this is because they don’t have an answer, so I’ll ask this again what is the explanation to this godless reality?
So now comes the question that the godless never answer, and then try and downplay it as if there is no reason to answer, and this is because they don’t have an answer, so I’ll ask this again what is the explanation to this godless reality?
Ok let’s put this to the test then:
You said “There is no other means of establishing a true premise”
^how do we prove this premise?
you said “Philosophy must rely upon conjecture based upon the Laws of Nature as understood at present by science. It has no means to establish new facts”
^prove this premise then
You said “There is no other means of establishing a true premise”
^how do we prove this premise?
you said “Philosophy must rely upon conjecture based upon the Laws of Nature as understood at present by science. It has no means to establish new facts”
^prove this premise then
This is egregiously false, so let me give you an example of how logic can build on other types of knowing. Take the proposition: "All bachelors are unmarried men." Now on inductive, physical evidence we could never completely verify this since we have the famous "black swan" problem of induction. We would only be able to state that as far as we had tested it the proposition always held true. But logic can demonstrate the necessary truth of the proposition by considering it to be true by the meaning of the words and therefore it can be known to be absolutely true analytically a priori. This is an instance of logic assuring knowledge which goes beyond that of the senses and that of induction.
Therefore, logic can give us new knowledge
Therefore, logic can give us new knowledge
Whereas:
An Inductive argument, e.g. the “white swan argument”, is one where the premises provide some evidence for the truth of the conclusion but not conclusive proof. Inductive arguments are not valid or invalid,
So, again, how can Metaphysics establish a “true premise” for your Deductive arguments?
No it can’t The natural sciences ASSUME objective logic. Just as science also borrows an epistemology and often a metaphysical framework as well. Science cannot disprove the metaphysical argument that uses Occam’s razor to argue the case that we aren’t in the matrix.
Aristotle’s geocentric universe wasn’t intuitive, it was empirical.
Remember conceptual facts =/= empirical facts
The geocentric universe wasn’t a part of aristotle’s metaphysics, it was a part of his physics.
Intuition = non-inferential knowledge, Aristotle didn’t use non-infernetial knowledge to argue for geocentrism, as he used empirical means with respect to the way the Sun, Stars and Planets revolved around the Earth. Aristotle was making an ‘inference’ and therefore he wasn’t using ‘intution’ so have you absolutely no idea what you’re talking about, and judging at how poorly you are at conceding a point, I’m starting to think that this debate is a waste of time.
Remember conceptual facts =/= empirical facts
The geocentric universe wasn’t a part of aristotle’s metaphysics, it was a part of his physics.
Intuition = non-inferential knowledge, Aristotle didn’t use non-infernetial knowledge to argue for geocentrism, as he used empirical means with respect to the way the Sun, Stars and Planets revolved around the Earth. Aristotle was making an ‘inference’ and therefore he wasn’t using ‘intution’ so have you absolutely no idea what you’re talking about, and judging at how poorly you are at conceding a point, I’m starting to think that this debate is a waste of time.
No, my argument is that I don’t need to argue for a materialistic way on how the immaterial connects with the material, the question you’re asking is nonsensical, as it presupposes the truth of materialism in its conclusion. That’s like me asking you how the material brain connects with immaterial thoughts if materialism if your worldview is true.
Anyways, I’m with William Hasker, I’d argue that perhaps body has some identifying characteristic, unique to itself, that is has throughout its career. Or perhaps God not only creates but also sustains the causal interaction between the soul and the body. All and all while the argument is designed to show that there is some aspect of the human person that has the essential capacity to perceive logical connections, that entity still could very well be spatially locatable
Or we can go with emergent dualism! It does feel good on the fact that I don’t have to deal with the “problem of intentionality” that materialists have to deal with.
Anyways, I’m with William Hasker, I’d argue that perhaps body has some identifying characteristic, unique to itself, that is has throughout its career. Or perhaps God not only creates but also sustains the causal interaction between the soul and the body. All and all while the argument is designed to show that there is some aspect of the human person that has the essential capacity to perceive logical connections, that entity still could very well be spatially locatable
Or we can go with emergent dualism! It does feel good on the fact that I don’t have to deal with the “problem of intentionality” that materialists have to deal with.
Of course you don’t, but I was asking whether or not your proposition was true, so
If God existed, then God would be contingent, is this true or false?
If God existed, then God would be contingent, is this true or false?
Let me hold my stick aside for a second and ask you: Do you think that science is the only method towards gaining NEW knowledge about the universe, yes or no?
Sez who? All you do here is beg the question and assume that matter has always existed.
There is absolutely no evidence for a universe filled with matter that was always here, zero, zilch, nothing, just emotional people who would do anything to refuse to believe in a God, if only they used half the amount of skepticism against the godless view of reality as they do with God, I guarantee they’d be Theists.
If there as a sliver of evidence for a godless necessary material universe I’d have no problem accepting this.
If there as a sliver of evidence for a godless necessary material universe I’d have no problem accepting this.
And that law of physics only deals with closed systems, so this doesn’t work.
Do I really need to go over possible world semantics? Or how there are a priori truths that we can just grasp clearly and distinctly?
You’re and atheist because you don’t look hard enough, and you’re not skeptical enough towards a godless universe.
Because God is the author of nature, and rationality existing as an initial feature of reality isn’t supernatural. The term supernatural wasn’t used until the 16th = 17th century, so one doesn’t need to accept the distinction.
I made no such supposed "god of the gaps" argument. All of the arguments for God's existence I hold to are based on what we do know and not on the gaps about what we don't.
Snip.
Now we come to the fine-tuning of the universe. Does this unique scientific event have deep theological context? Well, yes. And so it seems inappropriate to hand-wave this theistic explanation.
Snip.
Now we come to the fine-tuning of the universe. Does this unique scientific event have deep theological context? Well, yes. And so it seems inappropriate to hand-wave this theistic explanation.
All the available substantive evidence points to naturalism, and none of it points to anything else. Therefore there is no reason not to be a naturalist and no good reason to be a theist. Especially given that, without exception, EVERY phenomenon which has been closely examined has turned out to have a natural explanation.
That’s a lot of blind faith you have, and I’m glad that you think that you have enough to be optimistic about your views,
Snip.
The argument then goes as follows:
1) If materialism is true, then there is no fact of the matter as to what someone’s thought or statement is about
2) But there are facts about what someone’s thought is about. (Implied by the existence of rational inference.)
3) Therefore, materialism is false.
The argument then goes as follows:
1) If materialism is true, then there is no fact of the matter as to what someone’s thought or statement is about
2) But there are facts about what someone’s thought is about. (Implied by the existence of rational inference.)
3) Therefore, materialism is false.
You haven’t taken me back and time and explained how it arose incrementally or at least give me something to work with so you have no answer. I argued simplicity,
Rationality was an inherited feature of reality
Rationality was an inherited feature of reality
I received no objection, only a god of the gaps plea. A plea that I’ve pretty much answer repeatedly now.
Well those communities according to the godless evolution should have died off because those communities were lacking true beliefs.
Oh and if the godless evolution is so concerned with truth as it supposedly aids survival, why do religious people live longer than non-religious people?
From the article “Research into liver transplant patients found those who were actively “seeking God” had a better survival rate than those who did not hold religious beliefs, regardless of which faith they held.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/he...-suggests.html
I also see things on spirituality too, so I guess the godles evolution is doing something fishy here.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/he...-suggests.html
I also see things on spirituality too, so I guess the godles evolution is doing something fishy here.
How about:
“CHICAGO (Reuters) - A study of more than 1,800 patients who underwent heart bypass surgery has failed to show that prayers specially organized for their recovery had any impact, researchers said Thursday. In fact, the study found some of the patients who knew they were being prayed for did worse…”
http://www.templeton.org/pdfs/articl...331Reuters.pdf
You said that a priori beliefs require assumptions, so I guess you’re backpedaling now, eh?
IT doesn’t matter if it’s a ‘natural’ origin, unless by ‘natural’ you mean ‘material’ and if that’s the case, then you have a problem, how does physical matter say something about physical matter? States of mind have a relation to the world we call intentionality, or about-ness, how does matter do this exactly?
Ask that materialist who needs to explain the immaterial substances in our universe, if you want to beg the question so can I.
No, you need to show me why I need to show you the mechanism whereby philosophy can acquire new facts about nature. You seem to be using this philosophical statement of yours as some sort of yardstick that I’m supposed to meet, Snip
Well how do I distinguish what’s new knowledge and what isn’t, because I feel like I’m learning a lot about how the universe functions from all of your philosophical statements.
Yes, evolution + God, not the silly evolution + God
Let’s break this down
Evolution + God = Evolution + Necessary, rational being
Evolution – God = evolution + necessary, nonrational being
So where did evolution and that increment….ah I’ve asked plenty of times already, you just don’t know how.
Let’s break this down
Evolution + God = Evolution + Necessary, rational being
Evolution – God = evolution + necessary, nonrational being
So where did evolution and that increment….ah I’ve asked plenty of times already, you just don’t know how.
The very first increment, what happened, since you probably don’t know what year I’ll let that slide. So what happened?
Comment