Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
26-01-2016, 03:53 PM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(25-01-2016 06:19 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  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.

But don't you see? It is fine to make the distinction between the two, however, when you begin to define the entity by giving it characteristics/attributes, you are turning it into a person..or giving it "personhood"...and based on the definition you are giving the unicorn (the "omni" attributes), you are basically giving it the same definition theists have traditionally gave "God". All you've done is replaced the word "God" and instead using the word "unicorn".

It is the same entity, just a different name stapled to it.

(25-01-2016 06:19 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  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?

I thought I did answer the question..Dodgy

(25-01-2016 06:19 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  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.

I still don't understand the whole "primacy of consciousness metaphysics" thing. May as well be Japanese...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-01-2016, 04:00 PM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(26-01-2016 08:37 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  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.

I don't know why you are giving Bucky props, since he is WRONG Laugh out load I've already gave reasons why it is possible for God to exist, so when I made the statement that he accused me of fallaciously making, it was based on previous argumentation that I've made to supplement it.

Trust me, I am not so naive to where I will "accuse you of a fallacy and then turn around and commit it myself". Far from it.

Bucky is just in a state where he is closely monitoring everything I say in order to play some bullshit "gotcha" game. It isn't working, nor will it ever work.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-01-2016, 04:03 PM (This post was last modified: 26-01-2016 08:36 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(26-01-2016 04:00 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(26-01-2016 08:37 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  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.

I don't know why you are giving Bucky props, since he is WRONG Laugh out load I've already gave reasons why it is possible for God to exist, so when I made the statement that he accused me of fallaciously making, it was based on previous argumentation that I've made to supplement it.

Trust me, I am not so naive to where I will "accuse you of a fallacy and then turn around and commit it myself". Far from it.

Bucky is just in a state where he is closely monitoring everything I say in order to play some bullshit "gotcha" game. It isn't working, nor will it ever work.

One does not have to "monitor" you for anything. EVERYTHING you spout is bullshit. It's very clear you don't even know what a non sequitur even is. You DID commit the fallacy. It's right there for the world to see. Deny it all you like. It won't work. You're a VERY poor apologist. You should look for a new pass-time, gramps. Have you thought of checkers ?

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
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
26-01-2016, 04:46 PM (This post was last modified: 26-01-2016 05:07 PM by GirlyMan.)
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.



#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-01-2016, 05:12 PM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
double double.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-01-2016, 05:16 PM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.



#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-01-2016, 06:01 PM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(26-01-2016 04:00 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(26-01-2016 08:37 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  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.

I don't know why you are giving Bucky props, since he is WRONG Laugh out load I've already gave reasons why it is possible for God to exist, so when I made the statement that he accused me of fallaciously making, it was based on previous argumentation that I've made to supplement it.

Trust me, I am not so naive to where I will "accuse you of a fallacy and then turn around and commit it myself". Far from it.

Bucky is just in a state where he is closely monitoring everything I say in order to play some bullshit "gotcha" game. It isn't working, nor will it ever work.

Because he was right. You did commit the fallacy of non sequitur. It was a textbook example. However I did not. My conclusion was that "God" is not a proper starting point for knowledge. This conclusion follow logically from the fact that "God" is neither conceptually irreducible nor self evident, since God assumes prior concepts. If the concept God rests on prior concepts, then logically it can not be starting point. One or more of the concepts it rests on would be, the ones which are irreducible. So no non sequitur on my part.

Seeking to prove the existence of something is a tacit admission that the thing is not self evident or irreducible. Unlike God, my starting point is self evident and irreducible.

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
26-01-2016, 06:23 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.

[Image: Pets.jpg]

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
[+] 4 users Like Chas's post
26-01-2016, 08:38 PM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(26-01-2016 06:23 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(23-01-2016 04:40 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  A real man takes selfies with dogs, not cats. You are quite a pansy.

[Image: Pets.jpg]

Jebus made such a nice humble and kind person of him. Thumbsup

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
26-01-2016, 09:58 PM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(25-01-2016 07:00 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  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.

I normally don't ask for links and I am to lazy to research it myself. But can you provide me a link to this?

And I do say "please" Smile

(25-01-2016 07:00 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  How could there possibly be a time when there is no time?

When you ask that question, you also have to ask "how can events in time be extended all the way back to past-eternity??"

That is the absurd concept. The only way I can imagine a "timeless" cause initiating time would be if I posit God existing throughout eternity in a perfecting stationary existence. Never once moving.

If he existed throughout eternity, having never moved, perfectly still...then there is no time element to his existence, is there?

An example commonly given is if we imagine a man that has been sitting in a chair, perfectly still, for eternity. By "eternity" we don't mean throughout time, we mean "without" time.

If the man has been sitting perfectly still for eternity (without time), then there was no moments which lead to his sitting. And if there is no moment before his sitting, there is no moments AFTER his sitting...nor DURING his sitting. Time simply doesn't exist.

Now, suppose the man moves his leg. From the moment his leg moves, that represents the first moment in time. That is the first "change", representing the first moment in time. The man has just went from an atemporal state, to a temporal state. The man is forever in time. This change is irreversible. It cannot be undone.

It is the same thing with God, God existed in a stationary state, and once he "began" creation (the big bang), that is when time was create/initiated.

Sure, it is hard for us to understand how God could have existed in such a state for eternity, however, it can be imagined. It can be perceived.

However, we cannot imagine a world at which events in time are infinitely long, extending to past eternity. We can't imagine it because we can't imagine logically invalid concepts.

But yeah, that is the only way I can imagine how a timeless agent can create time. And if anyone have any brighter ideas, then please, enlighten me.

(25-01-2016 07:00 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  How could there be a time before there was time?

There wasn't.

(25-01-2016 07:00 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  How could there ever be a time when time doesn't exist.

There was never a "time" when time didn't exist. Time just simply didn't exist.

(25-01-2016 07:00 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  If time is only meaningful within the universe, then time is eternal.

Time is not only meaningful within the universe.

(25-01-2016 07:00 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  Note that eternal and infinite are two different concepts.

Depending on the context, I agree.

(25-01-2016 07:00 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  Wait a minute. Isn't your God supposed to be infinite? Welcome to the wacky world of absudity [sic].

Um, no. That is why I just said CONTEXT IS IMPORTANT. When we say God is infinite, we are not using the word in terms of quantity...we are using it in the form of QUALITY. The quality of his being is "infinite", meaning you can't think of a being greater than him.

If we were in fact using "infinite" in terms of quantity, then you would have a point. But since we are not, you don't Laugh out load Again, we aren't that naïve.

(25-01-2016 07:00 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  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.

Um, dude...either time had a beginning, or it DIDN'T have a beginning. For the naturalist, this is a problem because the concept is absurd either way.

If time had a beginning, a timeless cause is needed and the gap can only be filled with the God hypothesis.

If time didn't have a beginning, the past is eternal and you run into the problem with infinite regression.

So either way, you have more problems than you can handle.

(25-01-2016 07:00 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  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.

You are saying it is eternal, therefore, time is eternal. Infinite regression.

(25-01-2016 07:00 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  Sure there is, by pointing out that seeking a cause for the universe (the sum total of what exists) is fallacious.

I am sorry you erroneously feel that way.

(25-01-2016 07:00 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  I've already explained that the time only applies withing the universe (the sum total of what exists) because it presupposes existence.

Dude, what??????

(25-01-2016 07:00 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  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.

I'm lost, bro. Very. Very. Very. Lost.

(25-01-2016 07:00 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  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.

If you are saying "something had to have always have existed", then I agree.

(25-01-2016 07:00 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  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.

Right, existence is the first cause...God existed, and he caused the universe to come into being. Hey, we agree on something!! Thumbsup
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: