Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
23-01-2016, 01:14 PM (This post was last modified: 23-01-2016 02:04 PM by GirlyMan.)
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(23-01-2016 12:51 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(23-01-2016 12:36 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  The answer is relative to the radix. All arithmetic is relative to the radix. The irony of your mathematical ignorance is that the only reason we even communicate is that 1+1=10 in base 2. You're not even a mathematical midget, you're just a fuckin' idiot.

Bullshit. I will ask again: If you have an apple in your right hand, and you are approached by Chas, and he gives you another apple. And now you have an apple in your left hand. So now you have one apple in your right hand, and one in your left hand.

How many apples do you have total??

Your question is underspecified and unanswerable without a radix. The answer would be 2 with radix 10, 10 with radix 2, and [Image: equation.gif] with the golden ratio as a base.

Your ignorance of basic grade school mathematics is alarming. I can only hope that you are not representative of US public education. 'Cause if you are, we are fucked.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-01-2016, 02:28 PM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(23-01-2016 11:41 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(22-01-2016 03:07 PM)Chas Wrote:  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??

The assertion that God is a necessary being is entirely unsupported.

(22-01-2016 02:35 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  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.

Existence does not directly follow from possible. You are making an illogical and unsupported leap. Possibility is certain;y a necessary condition for existence, but it is not sufficient.

Quote: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!!

No; see above.

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

No; see above, pal.

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

More unsupported assertions. There is no necessity for a first cause if there has eternally been something. You don't know that there hasn't, therefor you can't truthfully assert that there must be a first cause.

Quote: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

There is no problem with infinite existence. That is not infinite regression.
Infinite regression is a problem only for those asserting a first cause, because it requires special pleading to terminate it.

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, 04:15 PM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(23-01-2016 12:53 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  How very Christian of you. Did Jebus make you so nice ?

Nope. Apologies.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-01-2016, 04:19 PM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(23-01-2016 12:13 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  You don't even realize what you've done by equating your God with sparky because your worldview, which is solidly premised on the primacy of existence has blinded you to the distinction between what is real and what is imaginary.

Don't you mean Primacy of Consciousness? Consider

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, 04:21 PM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(23-01-2016 12:26 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(23-01-2016 12:15 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Big Grin "The full JEST" of what he says. LMAO

COTW, it's "JIST", you fool. What you say is very very funny, so it's good you agree you can only post your crap in "jest".

No one here is on you level. You are beneath contempt and ability.
You are unable to say ANYTHING intelligent.

Go away. You're very boring.

Actually, it is "gist". The difference is, I can be wrong about it and it not effect the main idea of what I am advocating for..

You, on the other hand, are wrong and it DOES effect the main idea of what you are advocating for, which is the correct spelling of the word "gist".

So, again, Bucky...go play in the traffic somewhere...somewhere where this are lots and lots of trucks and buses.

Affect, not effect. You are quite ignorant.

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, 04:38 PM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(23-01-2016 12:13 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  I don't need to respond to the rest of your points because you have already admitted that your God is indistinguishable from Sparky the Wonder Unicorn, which is wholly imaginary.

What I said was, if God exists, he could very well manifest himself into something YOU call imaginary, which is a unicorn.

Just because it is imaginary to YOU doesn't mean that there isn't a set of circumstances at which this imaginary concept can be a living reality...and under the "set of circumstances" that God could/does exists, what you call "imaginary" can be reality.

Actually, it is reality. So whatever nonsensical point you are trying to make, just...stop it Big Grin

(23-01-2016 12:13 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  You don't even realize what you've done by equating your God with sparky because your worldview, which is solidly premised on the primacy of existence has blinded you to the distinction between what is real and what is imaginary.

Same answer as above. Feel free to make the distinction between real and imaginary all you like, it doesn't change or refute what I said one tad little bit.

(23-01-2016 12:13 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  If you want to retract your statement that the thing I call Sparky the Wonder Unicorn, which I made clear is imaginary, is just like your God, then you'll have to give us all a method to distinguish the two. Simply declaring that your God is necessary is not sufficient since one can claim this about anything one imagines.

Right, and you just made a claim about a Wonder Unicorn and I said that it is possible for such an entity to exist...and what you call a Wonder Unicorn is just another name for what theists call "God". You are just taking the attributes of God and applying it to what you BELIEVE is something fundamentally different, which in actuality, it is the same.

It is logically within the power of God to manifest itself into a "Wonder Unicorn", this unicorn you are referring to is actually God with a unicorn manifestation.

The same thing applies to any FSM nonsense atheists like to posit.

(23-01-2016 12:13 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  When it comes to knowledge of reality, we should put away childish fantasies and focus on what is real. I recognize the fact that "wishing doesn't make it so". This is crucial to identifying what is real from what is imaginary. Your worldview teaches that wishing does make it so. Thus you have no problems with comparing your God to something that is merely imaginary.

A childhood fantasy is reptiles evolving into birds. That is something a kindergartner would think of, not rational adults. Unless these rational adults have axes to grind.

(23-01-2016 12:13 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  I'm happy to let the readers decide who is an epic failure here.

And here is a little something for you to chew on:

1. That which is indistinguishable from something that is merely imaginary, is in fact merely imaginary.

You have my sympathy, scotsman. Why? Because you seem to think that you have this knockdown refutation of the MOA, when really, you don't.

That first premise is absolutely false. You are falsely assuming that imaginary concepts can't be real concepts; concepts that can become a living reality despite being totally imaginary at the present moment.

I am imagining my wife giving birth to triplets (three future apologists Big Grin). It hasn't happened yet. But in five years, it happens....hmm...that which was previously imagined has now come to life. It is a living reality.

See how that works? So this whole "Wonder Unicorn" thing...it is imaginary to YOU...if in fact God does exist, manifesting himself into an entity that you call mere "imagination" is no difficult task for a Supreme Being.

So since your premise 1 is false, any conclusion drawn from it is also false. So no need to address the rest of the syllogism Cool
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-01-2016, 04:40 PM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(23-01-2016 04:21 PM)Chas Wrote:  Affect, not effect. You are quite ignorant.

A real man takes selfies with dogs, not cats. You are quite a pansy.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-01-2016, 04:54 PM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(23-01-2016 04:40 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(23-01-2016 04:21 PM)Chas Wrote:  Affect, not effect. You are quite ignorant.

A real man takes selfies with dogs, not cats. You are quite a pansy.

Weak. Drinking Beverage

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, 04:58 PM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(23-01-2016 02:28 PM)Chas Wrote:  The assertion that God is a necessary being is entirely unsupported.

It is supported based on the fact that the concept of a Supreme Being is not a illogical concept. The concept isn't self contradicting...doesn't violate any laws of logic...and it can ultimately be conceived/perceived in the mind.

These things make it POSSIBLE for God to exist...and all possible necessary truths must be...true Laugh out load

Oh, but I am sure you can demonstrate how the concept of God (as defined in the argument) is absurd. Go right ahead. I will wait.

(23-01-2016 02:28 PM)Chas Wrote:  Existence does not directly follow from possible. You are making an illogical and unsupported leap. Possibility is certain;y a necessary condition for existence, but it is not sufficient.

1. All possible necessary truths must be actually true

2. The proposition "God probably does exist" is a true proposition.

3. Therefore, God's existence is necessarily true

You have problems here, Chas. 1 and 2 are true, so the conclusion which follows in 3 is true...it just logically follows.

(23-01-2016 02:28 PM)Chas Wrote:  No; see above.

No, YOU see above.

(23-01-2016 02:28 PM)Chas Wrote:  More unsupported assertions. There is no necessity for a first cause if there has eternally been something.

You don't know that there hasn't, therefor you can't truthfully assert that there must be a first cause.

Infinite regression problem.

(23-01-2016 02:28 PM)Chas Wrote:  There is no problem with infinite existence. That is not infinite regression.
Infinite regression is a problem only for those asserting a first cause, because it requires special pleading to terminate it.

Nonsense. If God doesn't exist, then the universe/ time is infinite. That is infinite regression, Chas. Infinite regression is demonstrably false. It is logically absurd.

The only way to get out of such an absurdity is if you posit an EXTERNAL, TIMELESS cause...hmmm Consider

See the MOA is probably the most BOLD argument for the existence of God. Why? Because the argument basically says; once you even ADMIT that the existence of God is possible, then you are automatically implying that God exists. So the only thing you can do is somehow find a logical flaw based on the concept of God alone, which no one has ever been able to do.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-01-2016, 05:16 PM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(23-01-2016 04:58 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(23-01-2016 02:28 PM)Chas Wrote:  The assertion that God is a necessary being is entirely unsupported.

It is supported based on the fact that the concept of a Supreme Being is not a illogical concept. The concept isn't self contradicting...doesn't violate any laws of logic...and it can ultimately be conceived/perceived in the mind.

These things make it POSSIBLE for God to exist...and all possible necessary truths must be...true Laugh out load

Oh, but I am sure you can demonstrate how the concept of God (as defined in the argument) is absurd. Go right ahead. I will wait.

(23-01-2016 02:28 PM)Chas Wrote:  Existence does not directly follow from possible. You are making an illogical and unsupported leap. Possibility is certain;y a necessary condition for existence, but it is not sufficient.

1. All possible necessary truths must be actually true

2. The proposition "God probably does exist" is a true proposition.

3. Therefore, God's existence is necessarily true

You have problems here, Chas. 1 and 2 are true, so the conclusion which follows in 3 is true...it just logically follows.

(23-01-2016 02:28 PM)Chas Wrote:  No; see above.

No, YOU see above.

(23-01-2016 02:28 PM)Chas Wrote:  More unsupported assertions. There is no necessity for a first cause if there has eternally been something.

You don't know that there hasn't, therefor you can't truthfully assert that there must be a first cause.

Infinite regression problem.

(23-01-2016 02:28 PM)Chas Wrote:  There is no problem with infinite existence. That is not infinite regression.
Infinite regression is a problem only for those asserting a first cause, because it requires special pleading to terminate it.

Nonsense. If God doesn't exist, then the universe/ time is infinite. That is infinite regression, Chas. Infinite regression is demonstrably false. It is logically absurd.

The only way to get out of such an absurdity is if you posit an EXTERNAL, TIMELESS cause...hmmm Consider

See the MOA is probably the most BOLD argument for the existence of God. Why? Because the argument basically says; once you even ADMIT that the existence of God is possible, then you are automatically implying that God exists. So the only thing you can do is somehow find a logical flaw based on the concept of God alone, which no one has ever been able to do.

That fails from the get-go. You can't get necessary from possible.

Infinite does not equal infinite regression.

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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: