TAG vs. the Argument From Primacy
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
27-01-2015, 06:33 PM
RE: TAG vs. the Argument From Primacy
(27-01-2015 05:34 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  Mathew 17:20 And Jesus said unto them, Because of your unbelief: for verily I say unto you, If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you. This is clear unambiguous proof that the Bible affirms a POC universe.
It's not clear to me. I don't read that into it at all.
I really don't think any Christians believe that they can talk to a mountain, asking it to move and then have expectations that the mountain will move. This is a strawman.
(27-01-2015 05:34 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  Then there is water turning into wine, people walking on water, the dead being raised by faith, and the whole Genesis account. It is not arguable.
Which Christians think that they can walk on water through the act of conscious will alone? The Genesis account is supposed to be allegoy isn't it, rather than literal?
I think the point of the story is that a god was supposed to have created it all, Who knows what the mechanism was. But anyway, you are assuming all gods are creater gods if you invoke this.

(27-01-2015 05:34 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  As for asking for proof of the POE, I've tried to explain that it is a precondition of any proof. Maybe this will make it concrete for you. When you ask someone to prove a claim, what are you asking in essence? You are saying, Scotsman, just because you believe something to be true doesn't make it true. You must prove it. After all facts are facts whether you believe in them or not. Haven't we all heard that the great thing about the truth is it is true whether you believe it or not. If you are using the concepts of truth and proof and denying that existence is primary you are committing the fallacy of the stolen concept. This fallacy involves using a higher level concept while denying its genetic root. If reality is not enough to convince you then there is nothing else I can add.
I find your argument unconvincing, it includes too many assumptions, too many strawmen.
I certainly don't think any sane person believes that they can will things into existence, or will things, external to their own bodies, to move.
I do not know if theists believe their god to be a consciousness without substance.
Do you know of church or religious organisations, theologians that document and publish the idea of Primacy of Consciousness?

But anyway, obviously this is an argument meant to convince them and not me. Good luck with that.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-01-2015, 06:45 PM
RE: TAG vs. the Argument From Primacy
(27-01-2015 06:33 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(27-01-2015 05:34 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  Mathew 17:20 And Jesus said unto them, Because of your unbelief: for verily I say unto you, If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you. This is clear unambiguous proof that the Bible affirms a POC universe.
It's not clear to me. I don't read that into it at all.
I really don't think any Christians believe that they can talk to a mountain, asking it to move and then have expectations that the mountain will move. This is a strawman.
(27-01-2015 05:34 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  Then there is water turning into wine, people walking on water, the dead being raised by faith, and the whole Genesis account. It is not arguable.
Which Christians think that they can walk on water through the act of conscious will alone? The Genesis account is supposed to be allegoy isn't it, rather than literal?
I think the point of the story is that a god was supposed to have created it all, Who knows what the mechanism was. But anyway, you are assuming all gods are creater gods if you invoke this.

(27-01-2015 05:34 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  As for asking for proof of the POE, I've tried to explain that it is a precondition of any proof. Maybe this will make it concrete for you. When you ask someone to prove a claim, what are you asking in essence? You are saying, Scotsman, just because you believe something to be true doesn't make it true. You must prove it. After all facts are facts whether you believe in them or not. Haven't we all heard that the great thing about the truth is it is true whether you believe it or not. If you are using the concepts of truth and proof and denying that existence is primary you are committing the fallacy of the stolen concept. This fallacy involves using a higher level concept while denying its genetic root. If reality is not enough to convince you then there is nothing else I can add.
I find your argument unconvincing, it includes too many assumptions, too many strawmen.
I certainly don't think any sane person believes that they can will things into existence, or will things, external to their own bodies, to move.
I do not know if theists believe their god to be a consciousness without substance.
Do you know of church or religious organisations, theologians that document and publish the idea of Primacy of Consciousness?

But anyway, obviously this is an argument meant to convince them and not me. Good luck with that.

Naw ... nothing wrong with his argument.

It's you.

You just can't grasp thinking in terms of positives and negatives, as opposed to only positives.

Don't feel bad. Many people are like that.

Carry on.

Drinking Beverage

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were born this way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: