Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
22-01-2016, 02:35 PM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(09-01-2016 10:43 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  Call of the Wild, I apologize for not getting back to you on this with a response. I can only plead that I have been incredibly busy and have had no time to post more than passing comments. Your responses to me deserve more than that and now that I have some free time (finally!) I want to respond in detail.

Its all good, bro Thumbsup I haven't been on here in a minute, either Big Grin

(09-01-2016 10:43 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  I had written: One can apply the qualifier "necessary" to anything one imagines. Sparky the Wonder Unicorn is a necessary being. This is the fallacy of stipulation by contrived definition. One can attach any number of contrived qualities to anything one can imagine, but we know that according the primacy of existence principle, the imaginary is not real and does not really exists no matter how we describe it.

The problem with your assessment is; sure, you can apply the qualifer "necessary" to anything you want, however, if you apply it to yourself, that makes the premise false..because the fact of the matter is, you are not a necessary being.

Just the mere application of the qualifer isn't enough...the point is, anything that is POSSIBLY necessarily true must in fact be ACTUALLY necessarily true.

(09-01-2016 10:43 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  You replied: Then we will have to get into modal logic and possible world semantics.

No we don't. I've already told you that I reject the necessary/ contingent dichotomy. I also reject its various offshoots including the analytic/ Synthetic dichotomy. I explained why, because it is based on a flawed theory of concepts. It confuses a concept with its definition. I don't recognize the possibility of other worlds. The only alternative to reality is unreality.

Actually, we do. Possible world semantics is just a way to describe the way things COULD be, contrary to the way that things actually are. So in any set of circumstances, no matter how many possibilities there are, we call these "possible worlds".

When it comes to the MOA, we are describing a particular entity/being, and pondering whether or not it is possible for the being (as described) to exist...and based on the nature of what it means to be "necessary", it just so happens that once you admit that it is possible for a necessary being to exist, then the being must actually exist!!

I know you may not like it, but that is the nature of the beast, buddy Big Grin

(09-01-2016 10:43 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  Of course it does. I freely admit that Sparky the Wonder Unicorn is imaginary. It can have any attributes I imagine it having. Free will? why not. I can imagine Sparky having free will.

The problem you have is simple: The being that you are describing as "Sparky the Wonder Unicorn" is just another name for "God". And yes, God does have the power to manifest himself in the form of a "Wonder Unicorn" if he so desires.

Kind of reminds me of WLC debate....just 1:30 seconds...dig this..





(09-01-2016 10:43 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  I had written: I define the universe as the sum total of what exists. Therefore the universe can not have a cause.

You replied: Non sequitur.

How so? You do not explain.

How so? Based on the Kalam Cosmological Argument and any contemporary scientific evidence we have for a finite universe and also any philosophical argument we can give for a finite universe.

(09-01-2016 10:43 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  I note that you did not take issue with my defining the universe as the sum total of what exists.

I would say the sum total of everything that physically exists.

(09-01-2016 10:43 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  The sum total of what exists can not have a cause.

It can and it did.

(09-01-2016 10:43 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  This is because a cause presupposes existence.

Of course.

(09-01-2016 10:43 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  causes only exist within the universe.

Impossible.

(09-01-2016 10:43 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  I had written: Such a notion would commit the fallacy of the stolen concept by asking for a cause outside of existence.

What is wrong with asking for a cause outside of the universe when we have evidence that the universe began to exist, and everything that begins to exist has a cause?

(09-01-2016 10:43 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  This is akin to trying to lift the chair you are sitting in over your head while you are sitting in it. It can't be done.

Fallacy of false equivalency

(09-01-2016 10:43 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  No. We don't. We have evidence that something expanded and cooled and formed the stars and galaxies.

It couldn't have been expanding for eternity, and that is the point. No one is suggesting that the singularity was just sitting there for eternity, and waiting to to expand for some God-unforseen (no pun intended) reason.

It began to expand/exist at some point in the FINITE past, and this cries out for an external explanation.

Oh, and btw, by "expand/exist" I am using both terms synonymously due to the fact that under the standard model, the universe did NOT exist prior to the expansion because the singularity was a zero-space, zero-matter point.

And if you dont' have space or matter, you don't have a universe, now do you?

(09-01-2016 10:43 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  We don't even have a theory about what expanded because our understanding of physics breaks down at that point. The bib bang theory starts shortly after the universe started to expand. Everything prior to that is speculation.

What happened "prior" to that isn't even a logical question to ask. It just isn't. It is quite common for naturalists to just assume that nature and time can be extended all the way back to eternal past...but such a concept is demonstrably false.

You have the good ole' infinity problem. A first cause is absolutely, positively necessary. You can't extend causation back to past eternity. So this whole idea of "we don't know what happened prior to the big bang" is absurd, because you are positing the big bang "event" as just one point on an infinitely long temporal chain, which is logically incoherent.

A First Cause is necessary, and only a supernatural, atemporal, personal being could be the initiator of time and physical reality.

(09-01-2016 10:43 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  But the very notion of a cause outside of the universe would, as I've pointed out, commit the fallacy of the stolen concept. I note that you have not responded to this charge. You've ignored it. It won't go away by ignoring it. It's still there at the root of your argument.

Well, lets just let the rest of our exchanges consist of me educating you on exactly why a First Cause is necessary due to the problems you have with infinite regression...and then we can pass the topic off as "dealt with" instead of "ignored". Big Grin

(09-01-2016 10:43 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  I notice that you do not define what you mean by the universe. I think it is crucial to do this. I've given my definition -the sum total of what exists-and you have not taken issue with it. So define your terms and be clear.

By universe, I mean "all physical reality, wherever it may be"...and your definition "the sum total of what exist"...I will add "the space of which everything that physically exists is placed".

(09-01-2016 10:43 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  I had written: I reject the necessary/ contingent dichotomy because it is based on a flawed theory of concepts. It confuses a concept with its definition. A concept, on my view, means the units it subsumes and all of their attributes. Leaving aside the man made, there is no such thing as necessary facts versus contingent facts, there are only the facts which are. Of course man made facts did not have to be, but once they are, they are.

I take issue with your assessment. First off, for all you know know in your finite knowledge, God may in fact actually exist. You are in no place to make any absolute claims about God's existence. For all you (and anyone else know) God may exist.

Because you sure as hell can't offer any evidence that such a being doesn't exist..so all you can do is attempt to refute the evidence that IS presented for God's existence. That is about all you can do.

(09-01-2016 10:43 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  You replied: All possible necessary truths must be actually true...you do agree with that, right?

I agree that all true statements are true.

"I agree that all married men are married".....umm Huh

(09-01-2016 10:43 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  All possible truths are true. I don't recognize the concept of necessary truths. Truth is an aspect of identification. It is epistemological. identification is a volitional process. Truth is the non-contradictory identification of facts. All facts are inherent in the things that exist. So all facts are necessary. They exist whether we identify them or not. But identification is volitional. So there are no necessary truths. All truth is contingent upon the relationship between our identifications and reality.

Necessary truths are propositions that are either true or false and will remain true or false regardless of any circumstances. So for example 1+1 will always = 2.

You can't think of any circumstances at which 1+1 will equal anything besides 2, right? That is because mathematical results are necessary truths. Therefore, 1+1 =2 in all possible worlds.

That being said; proponents of the MOA are saying that God's existence is just as necessary as 1+1 = 2.

Of course, just merely stating it and/or defining it isn't what makes God's existence necessary, it is the thought experimentation behind it, which is in fact...true.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-01-2016, 02:57 PM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(22-01-2016 02:35 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(09-01-2016 10:43 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  Call of the Wild, I apologize for not getting back to you on this with a response. I can only plead that I have been incredibly busy and have had no time to post more than passing comments. Your responses to me deserve more than that and now that I have some free time (finally!) I want to respond in detail.

Its all good, bro Thumbsup I haven't been on here in a minute, either Big Grin

(09-01-2016 10:43 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  I had written: One can apply the qualifier "necessary" to anything one imagines. Sparky the Wonder Unicorn is a necessary being. This is the fallacy of stipulation by contrived definition. One can attach any number of contrived qualities to anything one can imagine, but we know that according the primacy of existence principle, the imaginary is not real and does not really exists no matter how we describe it.

The problem with your assessment is; sure, you can apply the qualifer "necessary" to anything you want, however, if you apply it to yourself, that makes the premise false..because the fact of the matter is, you are not a necessary being.

Just the mere application of the qualifer isn't enough...the point is, anything that is POSSIBLY necessarily true must in fact be ACTUALLY necessarily true.

(09-01-2016 10:43 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  You replied: Then we will have to get into modal logic and possible world semantics.

No we don't. I've already told you that I reject the necessary/ contingent dichotomy. I also reject its various offshoots including the analytic/ Synthetic dichotomy. I explained why, because it is based on a flawed theory of concepts. It confuses a concept with its definition. I don't recognize the possibility of other worlds. The only alternative to reality is unreality.

Actually, we do. Possible world semantics is just a way to describe the way things COULD be, contrary to the way that things actually are. So in any set of circumstances, no matter how many possibilities there are, we call these "possible worlds".

When it comes to the MOA, we are describing a particular entity/being, and pondering whether or not it is possible for the being (as described) to exist...and based on the nature of what it means to be "necessary", it just so happens that once you admit that it is possible for a necessary being to exist, then the being must actually exist!!

I know you may not like it, but that is the nature of the beast, buddy Big Grin

(09-01-2016 10:43 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  Of course it does. I freely admit that Sparky the Wonder Unicorn is imaginary. It can have any attributes I imagine it having. Free will? why not. I can imagine Sparky having free will.

The problem you have is simple: The being that you are describing as "Sparky the Wonder Unicorn" is just another name for "God". And yes, God does have the power to manifest himself in the form of a "Wonder Unicorn" if he so desires.

Kind of reminds me of WLC debate....just 1:30 seconds...dig this..





(09-01-2016 10:43 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  I had written: I define the universe as the sum total of what exists. Therefore the universe can not have a cause.

You replied: Non sequitur.

How so? You do not explain.

How so? Based on the Kalam Cosmological Argument and any contemporary scientific evidence we have for a finite universe and also any philosophical argument we can give for a finite universe.

(09-01-2016 10:43 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  I note that you did not take issue with my defining the universe as the sum total of what exists.

I would say the sum total of everything that physically exists.

(09-01-2016 10:43 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  The sum total of what exists can not have a cause.

It can and it did.

(09-01-2016 10:43 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  This is because a cause presupposes existence.

Of course.

(09-01-2016 10:43 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  causes only exist within the universe.

Impossible.

(09-01-2016 10:43 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  I had written: Such a notion would commit the fallacy of the stolen concept by asking for a cause outside of existence.

What is wrong with asking for a cause outside of the universe when we have evidence that the universe began to exist, and everything that begins to exist has a cause?

(09-01-2016 10:43 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  This is akin to trying to lift the chair you are sitting in over your head while you are sitting in it. It can't be done.

Fallacy of false equivalency

(09-01-2016 10:43 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  No. We don't. We have evidence that something expanded and cooled and formed the stars and galaxies.

It couldn't have been expanding for eternity, and that is the point. No one is suggesting that the singularity was just sitting there for eternity, and waiting to to expand for some God-unforseen (no pun intended) reason.

It began to expand/exist at some point in the FINITE past, and this cries out for an external explanation.

Oh, and btw, by "expand/exist" I am using both terms synonymously due to the fact that under the standard model, the universe did NOT exist prior to the expansion because the singularity was a zero-space, zero-matter point.

And if you dont' have space or matter, you don't have a universe, now do you?

(09-01-2016 10:43 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  We don't even have a theory about what expanded because our understanding of physics breaks down at that point. The bib bang theory starts shortly after the universe started to expand. Everything prior to that is speculation.

What happened "prior" to that isn't even a logical question to ask. It just isn't. It is quite common for naturalists to just assume that nature and time can be extended all the way back to eternal past...but such a concept is demonstrably false.

You have the good ole' infinity problem. A first cause is absolutely, positively necessary. You can't extend causation back to past eternity. So this whole idea of "we don't know what happened prior to the big bang" is absurd, because you are positing the big bang "event" as just one point on an infinitely long temporal chain, which is logically incoherent.

A First Cause is necessary, and only a supernatural, atemporal, personal being could be the initiator of time and physical reality.

(09-01-2016 10:43 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  But the very notion of a cause outside of the universe would, as I've pointed out, commit the fallacy of the stolen concept. I note that you have not responded to this charge. You've ignored it. It won't go away by ignoring it. It's still there at the root of your argument.

Well, lets just let the rest of our exchanges consist of me educating you on exactly why a First Cause is necessary due to the problems you have with infinite regression...and then we can pass the topic off as "dealt with" instead of "ignored". Big Grin

(09-01-2016 10:43 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  I notice that you do not define what you mean by the universe. I think it is crucial to do this. I've given my definition -the sum total of what exists-and you have not taken issue with it. So define your terms and be clear.

By universe, I mean "all physical reality, wherever it may be"...and your definition "the sum total of what exist"...I will add "the space of which everything that physically exists is placed".

(09-01-2016 10:43 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  I had written: I reject the necessary/ contingent dichotomy because it is based on a flawed theory of concepts. It confuses a concept with its definition. A concept, on my view, means the units it subsumes and all of their attributes. Leaving aside the man made, there is no such thing as necessary facts versus contingent facts, there are only the facts which are. Of course man made facts did not have to be, but once they are, they are.

I take issue with your assessment. First off, for all you know know in your finite knowledge, God may in fact actually exist. You are in no place to make any absolute claims about God's existence. For all you (and anyone else know) God may exist.

Because you sure as hell can't offer any evidence that such a being doesn't exist..so all you can do is attempt to refute the evidence that IS presented for God's existence. That is about all you can do.

(09-01-2016 10:43 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  You replied: All possible necessary truths must be actually true...you do agree with that, right?

I agree that all true statements are true.

"I agree that all married men are married".....umm Huh

(09-01-2016 10:43 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  All possible truths are true. I don't recognize the concept of necessary truths. Truth is an aspect of identification. It is epistemological. identification is a volitional process. Truth is the non-contradictory identification of facts. All facts are inherent in the things that exist. So all facts are necessary. They exist whether we identify them or not. But identification is volitional. So there are no necessary truths. All truth is contingent upon the relationship between our identifications and reality.

Necessary truths are propositions that are either true or false and will remain true or false regardless of any circumstances. So for example 1+1 will always = 2.

You can't think of any circumstances at which 1+1 will equal anything besides 2, right? That is because mathematical results are necessary truths. Therefore, 1+1 =2 in all possible worlds.

That being said; proponents of the MOA are saying that God's existence is just as necessary as 1+1 = 2.

Of course, just merely stating it and/or defining it isn't what makes God's existence necessary, it is the thought experimentation behind it, which is in fact...true.

A god that is necessary, is a god that is subject to reality and not it's creator, and not omnipotent. Your absence has not improved your drivel.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
22-01-2016, 03:07 PM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(22-01-2016 02:35 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  That being said; proponents of the MOA are saying that God's existence is just as necessary as 1+1 = 2.

Of course, just merely stating it and/or defining it isn't what makes God's existence necessary, it is the thought experimentation behind it, which is in fact...true.

No, it is in fact logically flawed.
You keep asserting it is true, but you have yet to post a compelling argument.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-01-2016, 08:46 AM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(22-01-2016 02:35 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(09-01-2016 10:43 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  Of course it does. I freely admit that Sparky the Wonder Unicorn is imaginary. It can have any attributes I imagine it having. Free will? why not. I can imagine Sparky having free will.

The problem you have is simple: The being that you are describing as "Sparky the Wonder Unicorn" is just another name for "God". And yes, God does have the power to manifest himself in the form of a "Wonder Unicorn" if he so desires.

And we're done. The problem you have is simple: You've just said that your God is identical to something that is wholly imaginary. There are many juicy morsels in your response that I can pick apart but with this one sentence above you have given up the whole farm. Nothing further needs to be said. I rest my case.

This is the consequence of the primacy of consciousness metaphysics which you hold. You have no way to distinguish between the imaginary and the real.

"I know you may not like it, but that is the nature of the beast, buddy."

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
23-01-2016, 08:59 AM (This post was last modified: 23-01-2016 09:15 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(23-01-2016 08:46 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  
(22-01-2016 02:35 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  The problem you have is simple: The being that you are describing as "Sparky the Wonder Unicorn" is just another name for "God". And yes, God does have the power to manifest himself in the form of a "Wonder Unicorn" if he so desires.

And we're done. The problem you have is simple: You've just said that your God is identical to something that is wholly imaginary. There are many juicy morsels in your response that I can pick apart but with this one sentence above you have given up the whole farm. Nothing further needs to be said. I rest my case.

This is the consequence of the primacy of consciousness metaphysics which you hold. You have no way to distinguish between the imaginary and the real.

"I know you may not like it, but that is the nature of the beast, buddy."

His god does not have the power to manifest itself as unnecessary to humans.
A god that is necessary requires no faith. COtW has no faith, and needs no faith.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
23-01-2016, 11:14 AM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(22-01-2016 02:35 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Necessary truths are propositions that are either true or false and will remain true or false regardless of any circumstances. So for example 1+1 will always = 2.

You can't think of any circumstances at which 1+1 will equal anything besides 2, right? That is because mathematical results are necessary truths. Therefore, 1+1 =2 in all possible worlds.

Wrong again Call_of_the_Long_Winded_Idiot. In my world 1+1=10. Idiot.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-01-2016, 11:41 AM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(22-01-2016 03:07 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(22-01-2016 02:35 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  That being said; proponents of the MOA are saying that God's existence is just as necessary as 1+1 = 2.

Of course, just merely stating it and/or defining it isn't what makes God's existence necessary, it is the thought experimentation behind it, which is in fact...true.

No, it is in fact logically flawed.
You keep asserting it is true, but you have yet to post a compelling argument.

Ok, so what is flawed about it, Chas?? And no "four-sentence" shit either. Tell me what is flawed about the argument...or are you just talkin??
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-01-2016, 11:47 AM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(23-01-2016 11:14 AM)GirlyMan Wrote:  Wrong again Call_of_the_Long_Winded_Idiot. In my world 1+1=10. Idiot.

^The price of atheism...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Call_of_the_Wild's post
23-01-2016, 11:55 AM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(23-01-2016 08:46 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  And we're done. The problem you have is simple: You've just said that your God is identical to something that is wholly imaginary.

Yeah, but there was a broader point in there somewhere. Either you've got nothing to offer as a refutation to the full jest of what I said, or you realize that you just cant compete with me on an intellectual level when it comes to this stuff.

Either way, epic failure on your part.

(23-01-2016 08:46 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  There are many juicy morsels in your response that I can pick apart but with this one sentence above you have given up the whole farm. Nothing further needs to be said. I rest my case.

Do yourself a favor by moving on to another thread, knowing that this one belongs to COTW.

Cool
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-01-2016, 12:02 PM (This post was last modified: 23-01-2016 12:17 PM by GirlyMan.)
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(23-01-2016 11:47 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(23-01-2016 11:14 AM)GirlyMan Wrote:  Wrong again Call_of_the_Long_Winded_Idiot. In my world 1+1=10. Idiot.

^The price of atheism...

For anyone here who might be tempted to read and consider Call_of_the_Long_Winded_Idiot's posts, know that this is a brain lacking knowledge of basic elementary mathematics I learned in 4th grade. If the radix or base is 2, 1+1=10.. Tomasia also apperars to lack knowledge of shit we all should've learned in 4th grade when he says 2+2 must equal 4. Wrong. 2+2 could equal 10 with a base of 4 or 11 with a radix of 3. Arguments from idiots who don't even understand basic elementary school mathematics are not worth my consideration.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GirlyMan's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: