Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
29-01-2016, 07:14 PM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(29-01-2016 07:10 PM)Chas Wrote:  So you agree that there should be evidence but it does not exist. Good.

No, actually i was being facetious regarding your gibberish.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-01-2016, 07:18 PM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
Call of The Wild,

Is there anything you need cleared up before you interact with the arguments I've presented? I'm still here ready, willing and able to help.

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
29-01-2016, 07:20 PM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(29-01-2016 07:14 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(29-01-2016 07:10 PM)Chas Wrote:  So you agree that there should be evidence but it does not exist. Good.

No, actually i was being facetious regarding your gibberish.

I will bet you dollars to doughnuts that you are the only one here who considered it gibberish.

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
29-01-2016, 07:23 PM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(29-01-2016 07:11 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(29-01-2016 11:27 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  That doesn't confirm anything. He could be any multitude of spiritual or deity beings, but that doesn't prove that he is the one connection to god at all. In what way does his statement get confirmed by such an event? Him being Resurrected doesn't relate to a path or not pathway to god in anyway. The ideas that spring up here don't follow any direct progression.

To raise yourself from the dead is to be God, Clyde.

Based on WHAT?

You stated you would believe anything a man raised from the dead tells you... You've even just stated now how foolish a logic you're using. You're just giving into what someone tells you without anything to confirm it. No confirmation or corroboration is necessary? What in the world of anything, do you actually believe without corroboration? It should be nothing.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes ClydeLee's post
29-01-2016, 07:51 PM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(29-01-2016 07:11 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  To raise yourself from the dead is to be God, Clyde.

There is nothing in the Bible that says he raised himself.
There is also no rule anywhere that says that is a rule.

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
30-01-2016, 09:24 AM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(29-01-2016 07:51 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  There is nothing in the Bible that says he raised himself.

"Your honor, I reserve the right to not only ignore the nonsense that comes from Bucky's finger tips, but I also reserve the right to respond to his nonsense accordingly. This particular time, my response to him brings honor and glory to Jesus Christ, so I reserve that right for this case."

John 2:19, sir.

I guess being wrong doesn't bother you much. *shrugs*
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-01-2016, 09:28 AM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(29-01-2016 07:23 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  Based on WHAT?

I will put it to you this way, Clyde..the whole concept of raising from the dead is shitting on naturalism, isn't it. So a resurrection would falsify the majority of you people's worldview.

It is at that point that you stfu and listen to what the resurrected person(s) has to say.

(29-01-2016 07:23 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  You stated you would believe anything a man raised from the dead tells you... You've even just stated now how foolish a logic you're using. You're just giving into what someone tells you without anything to confirm it. No confirmation or corroboration is necessary? What in the world of anything, do you actually believe without corroboration? It should be nothing.

Um, the confirmation is the resurrection itself, ESPECIALLY given the fact that he PREDICTED THAT HE WOULD DO IT IN THE FIRST PLACE.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-01-2016, 09:38 AM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(30-01-2016 09:28 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  I will put it to you this way, Clyde..the whole concept of raising from the dead is shitting on naturalism, isn't it. So a resurrection would falsify the majority of you people's worldview.

It is at that point that you stfu and listen to what the resurrected person(s) has to say.


Um, the confirmation is the resurrection itself, ESPECIALLY given the fact that he PREDICTED THAT HE WOULD DO IT IN THE FIRST PLACE.

It might, *if* (and only *if*) you could prove it happened.
Guess what ? You can't.
Got anything else ?
If not, guess you can STFU.

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
30-01-2016, 10:10 AM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(29-01-2016 10:25 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  I'll copy and paste what I wrote in post 447 to you. I realize this is a bare bones explanation so if there is anything you still don't understand, I'll be happy to help you. But, it really isn't a difficult principle to grasp, just a little different because it deals with fundamental principles which most people and philosophers take for granted.

Im with you so far..

(29-01-2016 10:25 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  "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.

Ok..

(29-01-2016 10:25 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  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.

Gotcha..

(29-01-2016 10:25 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  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.

Got it...

(29-01-2016 10:25 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  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.

Tracking..

(29-01-2016 10:25 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  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".

I don't know about this one...

(29-01-2016 10:25 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  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.

A conversation about objective morality is brewing on this one..

(29-01-2016 10:25 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  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.

The question seems to be "If the conscious subject wanted something to be A, could it actually be A?? The answer is YES.

The truth value of whether or not it is "A", is independent of what the conscious subject wants it to be.

The truth value of God existence is either true or false regardless of what we want, or what we think. Either God exists, or God doesn't exist. We cannot "think" God into existence....we cannot "define" God into existence...and we cannot "imagine" God into existence.

(29-01-2016 10:25 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  This is the fatal flaw in Theism, that it affirms the primacy of consciousness metaphysics, essentially that "wishing makes it so".

Nonsense, scots. No one is saying "God exists because we wish/want him to exist". We are claiming that God exist based on arguments that we present. These arguments are independent of conscious subjects. These arguments are also independent of each other...so even if you were to successfully refute one, you still have to deal with the others...and either one, on its own merit, is enough to conclude that it is more probable than not that theism is true.


(29-01-2016 10:25 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  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.

What? Each one of those arguments are deductive...syllogisms...so take your "primacy of existence" stuff, and tell me which premises (of any of the arguments) is false based on the primacy of existence.

(29-01-2016 10:25 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  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."

I need to know, just like I said above, how any of this is applied directly to the arguments that I can present (and have been presenting). You are just playing around the edges instead of diving right in and applying it to the arguments.

I don't see how any of what you just said can be used as refutation of ANYTHING. Not one single thing. So go ahead, apply it to the Kalam. Tell me how is the Kalam refuted based on the "primacy of existence".
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-01-2016, 10:14 AM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(30-01-2016 09:28 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(29-01-2016 07:23 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  Based on WHAT?

I will put it to you this way, Clyde..the whole concept of raising from the dead is shitting on naturalism, isn't it. So a resurrection would falsify the majority of you people's worldview.

It is at that point that you stfu and listen to what the resurrected person(s) has to say.

(29-01-2016 07:23 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  You stated you would believe anything a man raised from the dead tells you... You've even just stated now how foolish a logic you're using. You're just giving into what someone tells you without anything to confirm it. No confirmation or corroboration is necessary? What in the world of anything, do you actually believe without corroboration? It should be nothing.

Um, the confirmation is the resurrection itself, ESPECIALLY given the fact that he PREDICTED THAT HE WOULD DO IT IN THE FIRST PLACE.

What the hell does worldviews? (a strange focus of people here) and naturalism have to do with anything? It isn't a zero sum argument here of God or Naturalism. It could be a number of explanations! And what is "you peoples" worldviews mean, do you even know who I am? What does that even imply? Apparently you might think I think things that I don't think.

Isn't black magic depicted by the Pharaohs court involved in this idea? How do you know it wasn't a power of black magic? That fits just as well as predicting and accomplishing something. How do you know it doesn't make him a demon? A devil a product of the devil? What about rising form the dead = God? what about it = the true path to god? Nothing.

You logic amounts to, he told me so. So Joseph Smith told me he read the word of God from golden plates, there is better evidence of his event happening too. Muhammad arose into the heavens, proving his miracle. Why don't you believe his words, he did an event after Jesus acknowled Jesus but was the real last prophet of God, why wouldn't you accept him?

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: