Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
25-01-2016, 01:47 PM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(24-01-2016 03:04 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  Nope. What you said was that your god is identical to Sparky the Wonder Unicorn. We all saw you do it. You can't escape from the fact that you did this.

This is exactly what I said;

"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."

Do you, or do you NOT understand the point that is being made here? You apparently want to just take it at face value, which is bullshit. There is a bigger point being made here.

The point is; the being that YOU are describing as omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omnipresent..is just another word AND manifestation of a being that has been traditionally called "God".

So in other words, if God chose to manifest himself into a "Wonder Unicorn", he would be exactly what you are imaging him to be.

Now, if you can't understand that, then I can't help you.

(24-01-2016 03:04 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  "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". So God is the same as something that is merely imaginary. Got it. When you can point to evidence that your God is real, then we'll talk. I don't accept any arbitrary hypotheticals. This is not some semantic game here. I'm simply pointing out a fatal flaw in your God belief. One you can't escape. Or, are you prepared to tell us all how we can distinguish what you call God from something that is merely imaginary?

You just don't get it, do you? Nope. Oh well. I tried, and that is about all I can do.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-01-2016, 02:29 PM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(24-01-2016 02:38 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  I don't know how all of the problems are solved. I'm just putting it out there. According to loop quantum gravity theory, entropy resets at the bounce.

It resets to high, or resets to low?

(24-01-2016 02:38 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  It doesn't matter because I avoid the whole problem of an infinite regress because I start with existence and I recognize that time presupposes existence. I recognize that the universe is the sum total of what exists. It is literally outside of time. Time only has meaning in the universe. You want to define the universe as the sum total of physical things. This is an arbitrary distinction and destroys the axiomatic nature of the concept. Physical existence is not conceptually irreducible. It is not a proper starting point.

Either time had a beginning, or time didn't have a beginning. Plain and simple.

If time is infinite, then welcome to the wacky world of absudity, because that is what you will get with infinite regression that comes along with an eternal past.

If time had a beginning, then a timeless cause is absolutely necessary and there are no ways around it.

So either way, you have problems, my friend.

(24-01-2016 02:38 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  I start with existence and recognize that it is an absolute. Whatever exists, exists be it matter, energy, time, space, consciousness or even things that we have not discovered yet. I don't arbitrarily delimit existence. The concept is completely open ended, thus it serves as an objective, conceptually irreducible, axiomatic starting point. To ask what came before existence is a nonsensical question.

I agree, something had to always have been there. The only question is, did this "something" exist in time. The answer is no. Impossible. The problem you have is there is no way you can say that the universe was ever "timeless" in its existence". So if the universe has always existed, time has always existed. But time couldn't have always existed.

There is just no way to negate the need for a timeless cause.

(24-01-2016 02:38 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  To what would it refer if not something that exists? There are no hidden assumptions in my worldview. There are no assumptions period. Since I begin with existence as a whole, there is no infinite regression.

I fail to see how the fact that you "begin with existence as a whole" negates the infinity problem. I just don't see it. Maybe you can elaborate on that one.

(24-01-2016 02:38 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  I do not have to imagine a creator and then fallaciously claim that the universe needs a cause and this creator somehow doesn't.

You do not "have to", because you don't "want to".

(24-01-2016 02:38 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  Time is part of existence and makes no sense apart from it. Therefore there can be no before the universe or after the universe. It is eternal. That is not the same thing as infinite though. The two are not synonymous.

Yes they are synoymous. Don't get me wrong, I understand that "eternity" can mean different things, depending on the context, but in THIS case, infinite and eternity are in fact synonymous.

(24-01-2016 02:38 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  You can not logically begin with God because the concept is not irreducible, existence is.

Non-sequitur.

(24-01-2016 02:38 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  God is not directly observable, the fact of existence is.

Non sequitur.

(24-01-2016 02:38 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  By coming in here and arguing for your god, you concede that its existence is not self evident.

Not true, and also non sequitur.

I will just leave it there. I am having a diffcult time making sense of what you are saying. In this case, patience is not virtue.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-01-2016, 02:35 PM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(25-01-2016 02:29 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Not true, and also non sequitur.

I will just leave it there. I am having a diffcult time making sense of what you are saying. In this case, patience is not virtue.

Not suprising, Mr. Superior Intellect. Facepalm
That's actually not a nosequitur. You should take Logic 101 some day.
It makes perfect sense. It may not to you, but that's not suprising. You god IS not "self-evident". It it were, faith and arguments would be unnecessary, and it would not have to "reveal" itself.

Have a nice day. Maybe some day maybe you'll cook up something worthwhile. Wink

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
25-01-2016, 04:13 PM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(25-01-2016 01:47 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(24-01-2016 03:04 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  Nope. What you said was that your god is identical to Sparky the Wonder Unicorn. We all saw you do it. You can't escape from the fact that you did this.

This is exactly what I said;

"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."

Do you, or do you NOT understand the point that is being made here? You apparently want to just take it at face value, which is bullshit. There is a bigger point being made here.

The point is; the being that YOU are describing as omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omnipresent..is just another word AND manifestation of a being that has been traditionally called "God".

So in other words, if God chose to manifest himself into a "Wonder Unicorn", he would be exactly what you are imaging him to be.

Now, if you can't understand that, then I can't help you.


I do get it. You don't. Sparky is wholly imaginary. If you ask me to tell you how you could tell the difference between what I'm calling sparky and your God, I can't do it, because it is imaginary. I know that Sparky is imaginary but you want us to believe that Sparky, which you claim is the same as your God, is real. I've asked you how we can distinguish between your God and something that is merely imaginary and you avoid answering. Why is that?

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
25-01-2016, 05:13 PM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(25-01-2016 04:13 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  I do get it. You don't. Sparky is wholly imaginary.

Just because it is imaginary doesn't mean that it can't be an actual concept. Imaginary things can reflect reality. I thought I demonstrated this by "imagining" my wife giving birth to triplets. This concept doesn't reflect reality. I am imagining it. Yet, 5 years from now, behold, she gives birth to triplets!!! So what was previously a figment of my imagination is now a living reality.

Apparently this is a newsflash for you. One can imagine things that are not true. One can also imagine things that are true.

The point is simple: There lies a being that can manifest itself into a unicorn.

(25-01-2016 04:13 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  If you ask me to tell you how you could tell the difference between what I'm calling sparky and your God, I can't do it, because it is imaginary. I know that Sparky is imaginary but you want us to believe that Sparky, which you claim is the same as your God, is real. I've asked you how we can distinguish between your God and something that is merely imaginary and you avoid answering. Why is that?

Maybe you are the one that needs to answer a question...answer the question of; If you gave Sparky the same exact characteristics/attributes of the traditional theistic God, then it follows that Sparky/God are the same thing, the same being!!

Then the immediate question is, IS IT POSSIBLE FOR SPARKY/GOD to exist...and the answer is...YES.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-01-2016, 06:19 PM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(25-01-2016 05:13 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(25-01-2016 04:13 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  I do get it. You don't. Sparky is wholly imaginary.

Just because it is imaginary doesn't mean that it can't be an actual concept. Imaginary things can reflect reality. I thought I demonstrated this by "imagining" my wife giving birth to triplets. This concept doesn't reflect reality. I am imagining it. Yet, 5 years from now, behold, she gives birth to triplets!!! So what was previously a figment of my imagination is now a living reality.

Apparently this is a newsflash for you. One can imagine things that are not true. One can also imagine things that are true.

The point is simple: There lies a being that can manifest itself into a unicorn.

How can we reliably distinguish this being that you claim exists and can manifiest itself into a unicorn and something that is merely imaginary? The ball is in your court.

(25-01-2016 05:13 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(25-01-2016 04:13 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  If you ask me to tell you how you could tell the difference between what I'm calling sparky and your God, I can't do it, because it is imaginary. I know that Sparky is imaginary but you want us to believe that Sparky, which you claim is the same as your God, is real. I've asked you how we can distinguish between your God and something that is merely imaginary and you avoid answering. Why is that?

Maybe you are the one that needs to answer a question...answer the question of; If you gave Sparky the same exact characteristics/attributes of the traditional theistic God, then it follows that Sparky/God are the same thing, the same being!!

Then the immediate question is, IS IT POSSIBLE FOR SPARKY/GOD to exist...and the answer is...YES.

Notice that Call of the Wild does not answer my question, which goes straight to the heart of the issue, and instead asks me a question. Note the evasion. Why would Call of the Wild not want to answer the simple question that I asked if his God is real?

In answer to your question: IS IT POSSIBLE FOR SPARKY/ GOD to exist? The answer is no. Here's the proof of that.

1. If Sparkyism/Theism assumes the primacy of consciousness metaphysics, then it is incompatible with the primacy of existence metaphysics and can not be true.

2. Sparkyism/ Theism assumes the primacy of consciousness metaphysics.

Therefor Sparkyism/ Theism can not be true.

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
25-01-2016, 06:43 PM (This post was last modified: 25-01-2016 06:51 PM by GirlyMan.)
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(23-01-2016 10:59 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  So your god is neither infinite nor omnipotent. Facepalm

Girly's just looking to be omnibevolent, Carbon60. Omniscience and omnipotence is just silly. Not so quick to dismiss omnipresence.




There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. -Camus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-01-2016, 07:00 PM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(25-01-2016 02:29 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(24-01-2016 02:38 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  I don't know how all of the problems are solved. I'm just putting it out there. According to loop quantum gravity theory, entropy resets at the bounce.

It resets to high, or resets to low?

From what I have read of the hypothesis. It resets to low. There are plenty of articles and papers on the internet if you're really interested.
(25-01-2016 02:29 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(24-01-2016 02:38 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  It doesn't matter because I avoid the whole problem of an infinite regress because I start with existence and I recognize that time presupposes existence. I recognize that the universe is the sum total of what exists. It is literally outside of time. Time only has meaning in the universe. You want to define the universe as the sum total of physical things. This is an arbitrary distinction and destroys the axiomatic nature of the concept. Physical existence is not conceptually irreducible. It is not a proper starting point.

Either time had a beginning, or time didn't have a beginning. Plain and simple.

How could there possibly be a time when there is no time? How could there be a time before there was time? How could there ever be a time when time doesn't exist. If time is only meaningful within the universe, then time is eternal. Note that eternal and infinite are two different concepts.
(25-01-2016 02:29 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  If time is infinite, then welcome to the wacky world of absudity, because that is what you will get with infinite regression that comes along with an eternal past.

Wait a minute. Isn't your God supposed to be infinite? Welcome to the wacky world of absudity [sic].
(25-01-2016 02:29 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  If time had a beginning, then a timeless cause is absolutely necessary and there are no ways around it.

If there can be no time before time and there will be no time after time then time is eternal. So there's no problem here. There's only a problem if one assumes there was a time when there was no time and then time came into existence, but this is self contradictory.
(25-01-2016 02:29 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  So either way, you have problems, my friend.

No problem on my part. I'm not the one saying that the universe (the sum total of what exists) has a cause or is not eternal.
(25-01-2016 02:29 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(24-01-2016 02:38 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  I start with existence and recognize that it is an absolute. Whatever exists, exists be it matter, energy, time, space, consciousness or even things that we have not discovered yet. I don't arbitrarily delimit existence. The concept is completely open ended, thus it serves as an objective, conceptually irreducible, axiomatic starting point. To ask what came before existence is a nonsensical question.

I agree, something had to always have been there. The only question is, did this "something" exist in time. The answer is no. Impossible. The problem you have is there is no way you can say that the universe was ever "timeless" in its existence". So if the universe has always existed, time has always existed. But time couldn't have always existed.

There is just no way to negate the need for a timeless cause.

Sure there is, by pointing out that seeking a cause for the universe (the sum total of what exists) is fallacious.

I've already explained that the time only applies withing the universe (the sum total of what exists) because it presupposes existence. The sum total of what exists is literally outside of time, i.e. eternal. proposing a cause for the sum total of what exists commits the fallacy of the stolen concept. You've done nothing to answer this.

(25-01-2016 02:29 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(24-01-2016 02:38 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  To what would it refer if not something that exists? There are no hidden assumptions in my worldview. There are no assumptions period. Since I begin with existence as a whole, there is no infinite regression.

I fail to see how the fact that you "begin with existence as a whole" negates the infinity problem. I just don't see it. Maybe you can elaborate on that one.

Because the concept existence, which references everything that exists, is irreducible. That means it can not be broken down or analysed or defined in terms of prior concepts because there are no concepts more fundamental than existence. Knowledge begins where consciousness does, with existence. There can be no cause prior to existence so that there can be no infinite regress of causes. Existence iis the first cause. Non-existence doesn't cause anything and neither does your God.

To be continued.......

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
25-01-2016, 07:47 PM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(25-01-2016 05:13 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  One can imagine things that are not true. One can also imagine things that are true.

The point is simple: There lies a being that can manifest itself into a unicorn.

Now THAT right there. THAT IS a non sequitur. Weeping
Your conclusion IN NO WAY follows from your premise.

Remember that Logic class, dufus ? Take it REAL soon. K ?
Dodgy

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
[+] 3 users Like Bucky Ball's post
26-01-2016, 08:37 AM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(25-01-2016 07:47 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(25-01-2016 05:13 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  One can imagine things that are not true. One can also imagine things that are true.

The point is simple: There lies a being that can manifest itself into a unicorn.

Now THAT right there. THAT IS a non sequitur. Weeping
Your conclusion IN NO WAY follows from your premise.

Remember that Logic class, dufus ? Take it REAL soon. K ?
Dodgy

Damned straight it is. Good catch Bucky. Isn't it amazing how many times theists will accuse you of a fallacy and then turn around and commit it themselves.

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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: