Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
27-01-2016, 05:55 PM (This post was last modified: 27-01-2016 05:58 PM by GirlyMan.)
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(27-01-2016 05:26 PM)Chas Wrote:  [quote='GirlyMan' pid='937508' dateline='1453935030']

Much like YOU CANNOT PETITION THE LORD WITH PRAYER, YOU CANNOT SQUARE A CIRCLE!




#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-01-2016, 06:33 PM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(27-01-2016 03:33 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  So again, don't take Bucky's side on anything. You cannot be on his team, and be on a winning team. Oxymoron type of stuff.

Got it?

Because you, who can't explain what created the reality your god found itself in, says so ?

Who you trying to kid, gramps ?

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
27-01-2016, 09:01 PM (This post was last modified: 27-01-2016 10:58 PM by true scotsman.)
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(27-01-2016 03:33 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(26-01-2016 06:01 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  Because he was right. You did commit the fallacy of non sequitur. It was a textbook example.

What I said was "The point is simple: There lies a being that can manifest itself into a unicorn".

If you just take the statement at face value, of course, you can accuse me of committing such a fallacy. However, that would be ignoring the 800+ posts of me giving arguments for the existence of God and also failing to acknowledge that it is on the basis of those arguments that I believe "there lies a being that can manifest itself into a unicorn".

So I made the statement based on shit I've advocated for since the very moment I stepped foot in this forum.

So again, don't take Bucky's side on anything. You cannot be on his team, and be on a winning team. Oxymoron type of stuff.

Got it?

I see. We are not supposed to take what you say at face value. Got it.

And by the way, who cares about winning? My only concern is to get to the truth.

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
27-01-2016, 09:12 PM (This post was last modified: 27-01-2016 10:49 PM by true scotsman.)
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(26-01-2016 03:53 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(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".

This is not what I asked. I didn't ask whether or not it is fine to make a distinction between what is real and what is imaginary. This is a fundamental principle of my worldview, the primacy of existence. Your worldview holds the the opposite view of metaphysical primacy, the primacy of consciousness, only you can't hold this view consistently. You have to borrow from my worldview and then discard what you borrow when it comes to claiming your God exists so that you alternate between the POE and the POC as it suits you.

I asked you specifically how we can distinguish between what you call God and something that is merely imaginary. What I'm looking for in your answer is some kind of objective method. By objective I mean in accordance with the primacy of existence principle. That's the principle which states that existence exists independent of anyone's conscious activity such as wishing, feeling, wanting, dreaming, praying, commanding, hoping, fearing, throwing a temper tantrum, etc. You've avoided answering this question twice now and I know why. Really it's your only option, to avoid answering, because the issue of metaphysical primacy spells instant death to your God belief.

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
27-01-2016, 09:28 PM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(26-01-2016 03:53 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  It is the same entity, just a different name stapled to it.


Again, I don't think you realize the implications of this statement. If sparky is the same entity as your God then clearly your God doesn't exist as anything more than an imaginary construct.

First of all Sparky is not an entity. It is imaginary. It is a projection of the faculty of imagination. So if your God is identical to Sparky, then it is not an entity either but an imaginary construct of the mind.

Secondly they can not be one and the same since Sparky is something I just made up and you claim that your God is real. If they are one and the same than you will need to provide some evidence and argumentation to support your claim that Sparky really exists.

Thirdly, they can not be the same because Sparky didn't impregnate a virgin unicorn and then allow its only begotten son to be tortured and murdered. Sparky is a better being than that. It would not allow such a thing nor require it. Sparky also didn't flood the whole world and kill every living thing on it except for 8 people who then committed incest. Also Sparky would not ask someone to offer his son as a burnt offering and then say "just kidding, I wanted to see if you'd do it.". There are many differences between the two even though they share the fact that they are both imaginary.

I think you need to put some more thought into this comparison.

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
27-01-2016, 09:36 PM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(26-01-2016 03:53 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(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.

No you didn't. You simply asked me a question in an attempt to change the subject and avoid answering. I answered your question directly with a resounding no and then I proceeded to demonstrate with a simple sylogism, why it is not possible for your claim that Sparky/ God exists to be true.

Here it is again:

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.

Good luck refuting this argument.

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
27-01-2016, 10:25 PM (This post was last modified: 27-01-2016 10:54 PM by true scotsman.)
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(26-01-2016 03:53 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  I still don't understand the whole "primacy of consciousness metaphysics" thing. May as well be Japanese...

It's not Japanese, it's actually philosophy 101. If you don't understand it then you don't understand your own worldview's most fundamental principles. I've never encountered a theist who did. It's not surprising that you don't because the Bible has absolutely nothing to say on this most fundamental and crucial issue.

When we look out at the world, the first thing we are aware of is that there are things that exist. In the act of grasping this fact, we grasp that we are conscious. Something exists and we know it. We also grasp the fact that the things that exist are what they are and not something else. The things we perceive have their own specific identity. These three concepts stated in the form of universal principles are the axioms: existence exists, consciousness is consciousness of some thing, and to exist is to posses a specific identity, i.e., A is A. These three principles taken together entail a fourth recognition, that existence exists independently of conscious activity such as wishing, wanting, liking, fearing, demanding, praying, dreaming, feeling etc. A is A regardless of whether we like it or not. There is a distinction between the perceiving subject and the things is is aware of. There is a relationship between the two and it is contextually fixed. Consciousness is the faculty which perceives existence, not the faculty that creates it. This is known as the primacy of existence principle. validation of these truths is simply a matter of sense perception. These truths are self evident. These most fundamental of all our recognitions have profound implications for how we gain and validate knowledge. For instance, if we want to gain knowledge of the world we must look outward at the world, not inward to the contents of our imagination. What implications do these principles have on the concept "truth". Well right away we realize that for a proposition to be true, it must not violate any of these principles. What would truth mean in a universe that conforms itself to conscious wishes? Truth would be whatever some conscious mind decided it would be. Truth then rests conceptually on the primacy of existence principle. What would be the implications for logic if existence conformed to conscious activity. Well obviously, there goes the law of identity. A would no longer be A but A would be whatever some conscious subject wanted it to be. There goes the law of non contradiction and logic right out the window.

This is the fatal flaw in Theism, that it affirms the primacy of consciousness metaphysics, essentially that "wishing makes it so". This is the flaw that my argument made explicit. Any argument that seeks to prove that the god of theism exists, in the content of the conclusion would negate the laws of logic. It would be self refuting. It would be an instance of using logic to negate logic. It would commit the fallacy of the stolen concept by using logic to prove something which violates the primacy of existence, a concept at the genetic root of the concept logic. This means that any argument which seeks to establish the existence of the god of theism commits this fallacy. Every single one. Kalam. Commits the fallacy of the stolen concept and refutes itself. Ontological argument? Commits the fallacy of the stolen concept and refutes itself. Argument from miracles. Commits the fallacy of the stolen concept and refutes itself.

Here's the proof that truth rests exclusively on the primacy of existence:

1. If truth is the identification of reality based on facts which obtain independently of anyone's conscious activity such as wishing, wanting, praying, commanding, preferring, feeling, hoping, fearing, etc., then truth rests exclusively on the primacy of existence metaphysics.

2. Truth is the identification of reality based on facts which obtain independently of anyone's conscious activity such as wishing, wanting, praying, commanding, preferring, feeling, hoping, fearing, etc.

Therefor truth rests exclusively on the primacy of existence metaphysics.



This, in the shortest possible form I can present it, is the issue of metaphysical primacy.

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
[+] 4 users Like true scotsman's post
28-01-2016, 09:28 AM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(27-01-2016 09:01 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  I see. We are not supposed to take what you say at face value. Got it.

Reading comprehension + context = legitimate understanding of shit.

(27-01-2016 09:01 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  And by the way, who cares about winning?

Something only someone who is losing would say.

(27-01-2016 09:01 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  My only concern is to get to the truth.

You wanna get to the truth? John 14:6. Wipe the dust off of your Bible and read that verse. Nothing is closer to the truth.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-01-2016, 09:30 AM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(27-01-2016 09:12 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  This is not what I asked. I didn't ask whether or not it is fine to make a distinction between what is real and what is imaginary. This is a fundamental principle of my worldview, the primacy of existence. Your worldview holds the the opposite view of metaphysical primacy, the primacy of consciousness, only you can't hold this view consistently. You have to borrow from my worldview and then discard what you borrow when it comes to claiming your God exists so that you alternate between the POE and the POC as it suits you.

I asked you specifically how we can distinguish between what you call God and something that is merely imaginary. What I'm looking for in your answer is some kind of objective method. By objective I mean in accordance with the primacy of existence principle. That's the principle which states that existence exists independent of anyone's conscious activity such as wishing, feeling, wanting, dreaming, praying, commanding, hoping, fearing, throwing a temper tantrum, etc. You've avoided answering this question twice now and I know why. Really it's your only option, to avoid answering, because the issue of metaphysical primacy spells instant death to your God belief.

Dude, I really have no idea what you are talking about. I just...don't.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-01-2016, 10:03 AM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(27-01-2016 09:28 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  Again, I don't think you realize the implications of this statement. If sparky is the same entity as your God then clearly your God doesn't exist as anything more than an imaginary construct.

First of all Sparky is not an entity. It is imaginary. It is a projection of the faculty of imagination. So if your God is identical to Sparky, then it is not an entity either but an imaginary construct of the mind.

I've already said and demonstrated the fact that imaginary constructs can reflect reality (or SOON reflect) reality. Your entire argument is based on a false notion that "because it is imaginary, it can't be true".

That is basically what you are saying. That notion is just demonstrably false. It can be demonstrated to be false, yet you keep hanging on to it. Dude, it is FALSE. Ok??

(27-01-2016 09:28 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  Secondly they can not be one and the same since Sparky is something I just made up and you claim that your God is real. If they are one and the same than you will need to provide some evidence and argumentation to support your claim that Sparky really exists.

Duddeee, what the hell are you talking about?? Who cares if you just "made it up"?

You are talking as if an omnipotent being is incapable of taking an "imaginary" concept and making it reflect reality.

You continually remain stuck on this whole "imaginary" concept thing, and its not really a problem at all.

The MOA stands on its own two feet, and it makes a legimate case for a maximally great being (MGB). You can put whatever face you want to put on this being, but as long as this being is omniscience, omnipotent, omnipresent, omnibenovolent, and necessary in its existence...this being is God.

So when you "imagine" Sparky the Wonder Unicorn...you are imagining God. Yes, God can be imagined. Yes, God can be a "wonder unicorn".

Your problem is, again...you are assuming that just because you imagined it, it can't be true. That is why you can continue to pick whatever being you chose, whether it be sparky, the FSM, or WHATEVER...you can imagine WHATEVER being you want...but once you give the being those omni attributes, you are calling that being "God".

Plain and simple. If you don't get it after this, I don't know what else to tell ya.

(27-01-2016 09:28 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  Thirdly, they can not be the same because Sparky didn't impregnate a virgin unicorn and then allow its only begotten son to be tortured and murdered. Sparky is a better being than that. It would not allow such a thing nor require it. Sparky also didn't flood the whole world and kill every living thing on it except for 8 people who then committed incest. Also Sparky would not ask someone to offer his son as a burnt offering and then say "just kidding, I wanted to see if you'd do it.". There are many differences between the two even though they share the fact that they are both imaginary.

And how do you know what Sparky did/didn't do?? The MOA only makes a case for the being's existence. It says nothing about the being's intentional states and/or plans.

That just something you are making up so that you can make a distinction between the two...but it doesn't work because you are just NOT in any position to know the mind of God.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: