Logic vs. Theism
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
22-03-2017, 12:03 PM
RE: Logic vs. Theism
(22-03-2017 11:43 AM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  Again you seem to be saying that all theistic thought is the product of the mind and as such not conducive of actual reality. I would agree.

But to say that there is an ultimate causal force behind, or rather responsible for the start, and as such, the end of the formation of all existence or creation or formation or whatever other word you like to use.

As far as stolen what have you; because a thing isn't readily definable or observable now in this time with our limited understanding and resources doesn't mean it isn't real, or is imaginary, or supernatural; it only shows the limits of our own perception at this time.

peace

faith in selfless unity for good

I have not said this. I've said that theism affirms the primacy of consciousness and in doing so it is incompatible with logic

Pops, the truth of the primacy of existence is perceptually self evident. If you think that somewhere, somehow there exists a consciousness out there that we just haven't observed yet, that enjoys primacy over its objects, then you embrace a contradiction. You are saying that the universe has two fundamentally contradictory natures. You are saying that the objects of consciousness have primacy over the subject of consciousness and the objects of consciousness also do not have primacy over the subject of consciousness. A direct contradiction. So again you deny logic.

You are attempting to solve one contradiction by embracing another. Very invalid.

Either the objects of consciousness exist independent of consciousness or they don't. There's no in between here. Another law of logic.

Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. - Ayn Rand.

Don't sacrifice for me, live for yourself! - Me

The only alternative to Objectivism is some form of Subjectivism. - Dawson Bethrick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like true scotsman's post
22-03-2017, 12:04 PM
RE: Logic vs. Theism
(22-03-2017 11:44 AM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  
(22-03-2017 08:56 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  That's it exactly. Ayn Rand said that the best and simplest formulation was that of Francis Bacon: Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed.
That makes no sense. We can see all of nature follows preset laws and or instinct.

faith in selfless unity for good

You clearly do not have any understanding of what a "natural law" is.... This is really sad.

A Hypothesis, is an idea based on various evidences for how the world MIGHT work.

A Theory is when testing show's that that evidence which supports said hypothesis demonstrates how the world DOES work (to the best of our current understanding, the more tests and evidence the more confidence we gain in said theory)

A Natural Law is essentially a Theory that has been shown to have the maximum reliability, it DESCRIBES the natural world, it does not COMMAND reality. Also Natural Law's are very specific and narrow in scope. Why? Because the universe is a highly complex system. This is why I think Einstein failed to find his "Theory of Everything" a nice idea that he liked, that I think was doomed to failure.

DLJ Wrote:And, yes, the principle of freedom of expression works both ways... if someone starts shit, better shit is the best counter-argument.
Big Grin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like JesseB's post
22-03-2017, 12:07 PM
RE: Logic vs. Theism
(22-03-2017 11:44 AM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  
(22-03-2017 08:56 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  That's it exactly. Ayn Rand said that the best and simplest formulation was that of Francis Bacon: Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed.
That makes no sense. We can see all of nature follows preset laws and or instinct.

faith in selfless unity for good

It makes perfect sense to me. In order to do anything we must work with the identity of objects and not what we would like them to be. If you want to send a probe to land on a comet, your actions must conform to the facts inherent in nature.

Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. - Ayn Rand.

Don't sacrifice for me, live for yourself! - Me

The only alternative to Objectivism is some form of Subjectivism. - Dawson Bethrick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like true scotsman's post
22-03-2017, 12:10 PM
RE: Logic vs. Theism
(22-03-2017 11:57 AM)SYZ Wrote:  
(22-03-2017 11:43 AM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  ...As far as stolen what have you; because a thing isn't readily definable or observable now in this time with our limited understanding and resources doesn't mean it isn't real, or is imaginary, or supernatural; it only shows the limits of our own perception at this time.

Are you claiming that things that are said to be unreal, imaginary, or supernatural in the 21st century were known to exist and were seen in biblical times, and that we've now lost those perceptive powers? Is that due to evolution?

And would you not say that gods are supernatural (things beyond nature)?

As usual, pops has that exactly backwards. We are better able to perceive things far beyond what primitive Hebrew barbarians could in 700 B.C. and we are able to distinguish mythical things from reality better than those barbarians.

Unfortunately pops is stuck in a barbaric mythological mindset.

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like TheInquisition's post
22-03-2017, 12:18 PM
RE: Logic vs. Theism
(22-03-2017 11:33 AM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  
(21-03-2017 09:17 PM)JesseB Wrote:  We keep asking this, he keeps avoiding it... pity.
Oohh oohh! Pick me, pick me...

Leviticus: 19. 18. Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD.

Matthew: 5. 43. Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.

Matthew: 19. 19. Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

Matthew: 22. 39. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

James: 2. 8. If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well:

peace

faith in selfless unity for good

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Ok so.... Love your neighbor
but also.....
Ephesians 6:5-8 (NASB): Slaves, be obedient to those who are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in the sincerity of your heart, as to Christ; not by way of eyeservice, as men-pleasers, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart. With good will render service, as to the Lord, and not to men, knowing that whatever good thing each one does, this he will receive back from the Lord, whether slave or free.

1 Timothy 6:1-2 (NASB): All who are under the yoke as slaves are to regard their own masters as worthy of all honor so that the name of God and our doctrine will not be spoken against. Those who have believers as their masters must not be disrespectful to them because they are brethren, but must serve them all the more, because those who partake of the benefit are believers and beloved. Teach and preach these principles.

I can quote the bible too, and mine are ACTUALLY relevant to the topic at hand. Not some random mish mash of things you want to twist to mean what you want. I believe the phrase "post hoc rationalization" has been mentioned before? Perhaps you should look it up.

Your views on slavery would have been very different, potentially, even as little as 100 years ago.

DLJ Wrote:And, yes, the principle of freedom of expression works both ways... if someone starts shit, better shit is the best counter-argument.
Big Grin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like JesseB's post
22-03-2017, 12:27 PM
RE: Logic vs. Theism
(22-03-2017 11:49 AM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  
(22-03-2017 11:47 AM)TheInquisition Wrote:  Translation: You can't prove it's not god!
Just as I cannot prove it is.

All evidence leads to an ultimate cause.

The universe is not utter chaos.



faith in selfless unity for good

And a cause presupposes existence. Therefore proposing a cause for existence (the universe) is nonsensical. Existence is the first fact and cause. There is no concept, including the concepts evidence, ultimate, universe, proof, and chaos which does not rest on the axiom of existence since all these concepts identify things that exist. All knowledge involves a subject aware of some object, hence the proper orientation of the subject/ object relationship is implicit in all knowledge. That orientation is the primacy of existence.

Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. - Ayn Rand.

Don't sacrifice for me, live for yourself! - Me

The only alternative to Objectivism is some form of Subjectivism. - Dawson Bethrick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes true scotsman's post
22-03-2017, 12:39 PM
RE: Logic vs. Theism
(22-03-2017 12:27 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  
(22-03-2017 11:49 AM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  Just as I cannot prove it is.

All evidence leads to an ultimate cause.

The universe is not utter chaos.



faith in selfless unity for good

And a cause presupposes existence. Therefore proposing a cause for existence (the universe) is nonsensical. Existence is the first fact and cause. There is no concept, including the concepts evidence, ultimate, universe, proof, and chaos which does not rest on the axiom of existence since all these concepts identify things that exist. All knowledge involves a subject aware of some object, hence the proper orientation of the subject/ object relationship is implicit in all knowledge. That orientation is the primacy of existence.

I'm trying to think of a simple way to picture the concept that you are explaining to pops. Saying a god created the universe would be like saying a baby tiger ate it's mom before it was born. The baby tiger is dependent on it's mom, so that's impossible and nonsensical.

Existence requires physicality, consciousness depends on physicality, it cannot precede it.

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-03-2017, 12:42 PM
RE: Logic vs. Theism
(22-03-2017 12:39 PM)TheInquisition Wrote:  
(22-03-2017 12:27 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  And a cause presupposes existence. Therefore proposing a cause for existence (the universe) is nonsensical. Existence is the first fact and cause. There is no concept, including the concepts evidence, ultimate, universe, proof, and chaos which does not rest on the axiom of existence since all these concepts identify things that exist. All knowledge involves a subject aware of some object, hence the proper orientation of the subject/ object relationship is implicit in all knowledge. That orientation is the primacy of existence.

I'm trying to think of a simple way to picture the concept that you are explaining to pops. Saying a god created the universe would be like saying a baby tiger ate it's mom before it was born. The baby tiger is dependent on it's mom, so that's impossible and nonsensical.

Existence requires physicality, consciousness depends on physicality, it cannot precede it.

That's a good way to put it.

Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. - Ayn Rand.

Don't sacrifice for me, live for yourself! - Me

The only alternative to Objectivism is some form of Subjectivism. - Dawson Bethrick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-03-2017, 12:51 PM
RE: Logic vs. Theism
(22-03-2017 12:39 PM)TheInquisition Wrote:  
(22-03-2017 12:27 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  And a cause presupposes existence. Therefore proposing a cause for existence (the universe) is nonsensical. Existence is the first fact and cause. There is no concept, including the concepts evidence, ultimate, universe, proof, and chaos which does not rest on the axiom of existence since all these concepts identify things that exist. All knowledge involves a subject aware of some object, hence the proper orientation of the subject/ object relationship is implicit in all knowledge. That orientation is the primacy of existence.

I'm trying to think of a simple way to picture the concept that you are explaining to pops. Saying a god created the universe would be like saying a baby tiger ate it's mom before it was born. The baby tiger is dependent on it's mom, so that's impossible and nonsensical.

Existence requires physicality, consciousness depends on physicality, it cannot precede it.
Wait.... What? Physicality in no way determines existence; especially when speaking of metaphysics. That's like saying all existence came from the big bang but absolutely nothing in any form whatsoever existed before it. Nonsense.

faith in selfless unity for good
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-03-2017, 12:58 PM
RE: Logic vs. Theism
(22-03-2017 12:51 PM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  
(22-03-2017 12:39 PM)TheInquisition Wrote:  I'm trying to think of a simple way to picture the concept that you are explaining to pops. Saying a god created the universe would be like saying a baby tiger ate it's mom before it was born. The baby tiger is dependent on it's mom, so that's impossible and nonsensical.

Existence requires physicality, consciousness depends on physicality, it cannot precede it.
Wait.... What? Physicality in no way determines existence; especially when speaking of metaphysics. That's like saying all existence came from the big bang but absolutely nothing in any form whatsoever existed before it. Nonsense.

faith in selfless unity for good

There's your conceptual disconnect, there is evidence of consciousness evolving physically over time, there is zero evidence of matter springing from consciousness.

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like TheInquisition's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: