Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
28-02-2016, 07:17 PM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(28-02-2016 07:03 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(28-02-2016 06:26 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Because you do not understand it

Dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats, fish produce fish. Anything contrary to that, I don't understand.

That is my point, yes.

(28-02-2016 07:03 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  I didn't ignore it, I didn't ACCEPT IT.

Because you are a very, very silly man.

(28-02-2016 07:03 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Nonsense. The theory that you are pushing isn't necessarily contrary to my preconceived beliefs...

Except that you are a proponent of intelligent design.

(28-02-2016 07:03 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  1. Kalam Cosmological Argument
2. Leibniz Cosmological Argument

Incoherent.

(28-02-2016 07:03 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  3. Argument from Consciousness

Argument from ignorance fallacy, argument from personal incredulity fallacy.

(28-02-2016 07:03 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  4. Modal Ontological Argument

Incoherent.

(28-02-2016 07:03 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  5. Argument from Entropy

Incoherent, likely made up by you, most likely debunked by middle school level science.

(28-02-2016 07:03 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  6. Moral Argument

Incoherent, appeal to consequences fallacy.

(28-02-2016 07:03 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  7. Argument from Language

Incoherent, likely made up by you, most likely debunked by middle school level science.

(28-02-2016 07:03 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  8. Historical Argument for the Resurrection of Jesus

Unsupported.

(28-02-2016 07:03 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Pick at your own risk, buddy.

Try harder.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Unbeliever's post
28-02-2016, 07:35 PM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
Yes cow, we get you "don't understand" the question there is why do you insist in labels that have weak usages like kind over class/family?

"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
28-02-2016, 07:52 PM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(28-02-2016 07:17 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Except that you are a proponent of intelligent design.

And?

(28-02-2016 07:17 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Incoherent.

Why is both cosmological arguments (Leibniz and Kalam) incoherent?

(28-02-2016 07:17 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Argument from ignorance fallacy, argument from personal incredulity fallacy.

Thoughts are immaterial...and science can only mess with natural, material stuff...therefore, there cannot be a natural origin for the mind.

(28-02-2016 07:17 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Incoherent.

Why is the Modal Ontological Argument incoherent?

(28-02-2016 07:17 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Incoherent, likely made up by you, most likely debunked by middle school level science.

You do realize that all arguments, whether for or against Christianity, were "made up" by someone, right? Just wanted to point that out. Second, entropy is a problem for naturalists, so much so that a brilliant mind like mines can shape and mold it into an argument for the existence of God and also an effective argument against naturalism.

(28-02-2016 07:17 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Incoherent, appeal to consequences fallacy.

Nonsense. The argument is that if objective moral values and duties exist, then a transcendent moral lawgiver is necessary.

Don't know where you got the false fallacy accusation from. Return to sender.

(28-02-2016 07:17 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Incoherent, likely made up by you, most likely debunked by middle school level science.

Again, all arguments were "made up by someone". But it doesn't matter who made it up, what matters is the truth value of what is being stated...and trust me, I wouldn't have added it if I didn't think I could handle myself in a discussion on it Laugh out load

(28-02-2016 07:17 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Unsupported.

And what kind of historical evidence is good enough for you to render it "supported"?

(28-02-2016 07:17 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Try harder.

I am just having fun now. Cool
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-02-2016, 07:57 PM (This post was last modified: 28-02-2016 10:12 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(28-02-2016 07:52 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Just wanted to point that out. Second, entropy is a problem for naturalists, so much so that a brilliant mind like mines can shape and mold it into an argument for the existence of God and also an effective argument against naturalism.

This deluded fool actually believes that. Facepalm
This delusional idiot would consider a recitation of "Mary Had a Little Lamb" an argument for the existence of god.


Thoughts are 100% "material". They can be observed happening by brain imaging. The fact you are completely ignorant of Neuro-science, and the evidence that demonstrates that, is but a tiny sliver of your utter ignorance of almost every subject. If "thoughts" are immaterial, are the 'thoughts' of dolphins, dogs, whales, monkeys and apes also "immaterial" ? Unfortunately for you, the world has moved on since the 1950's when you learned your apologetics.

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
28-02-2016, 08:11 PM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(28-02-2016 07:52 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(28-02-2016 07:17 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Except that you are a proponent of intelligent design.

And?

Try to follow me on this one, Call.

If you are a proponent of intelligent design - that is, you have a preconceived belief that intelligent design is true - then you, rather by definition, have a preconceived notion that evolution is false, because it violates your beliefs.

(28-02-2016 07:52 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Why is both cosmological arguments (Leibniz and Kalam) incoherent?

I went over this earlier in the thread. Every variant of the cosmological argument ultimately comes down to trying to use an incoherent, undefined, alternate version of the word "causality" that has nothing to do with the concept as it actually exists.

They are also bare assertion, as we have no evidence that any entity which begins to exist outside the universe needs to have a cause, and special pleading, as they posit that universes must have causes but that gods don't because... because.

The cosmological argument is bunk in all of its forms.

(28-02-2016 07:52 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Thoughts are immaterial.

No. Thoughts are neurochemical reactions taking place within the brain.

(28-02-2016 07:52 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Why is the Modal Ontological Argument incoherent?

Because all ontological arguments, by their very nature, are matters of semantics rather than reality. Attempting to use them to define entities into existence does not and has never held water, as "existence" is not a property in the sense that the argument attempts to use it. This has been established since Kant, and is a fatal flaw in all variations.

The modal formulation of the argument in particular also tends to rely on the assertion that the existence of a god is possible, but this is just an assertion, and relies on the same useless non-definition of "possible" that various conspiracy theorists make use of when they say that the Roswell crash was "possibly" aliens.

Beyond that, though, the various issues depend on the exact formulation; since the argument is incoherent at its root, it gets "rephrased" a lot.

(28-02-2016 07:52 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Second, entropy is a problem for naturalists

No.

(28-02-2016 07:52 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Nonsense. The argument is that if objective moral values and duties exist, then a transcendent moral lawgiver is necessary.

The premise is incoherent and false. The conclusion does not follow. The argument is only raised as a rather feeble means of attempting to make atheists think of themselves as morally bankrupt, which is pointless; even were it the case, that wouldn't change a thing.

The universe is not required to be nice.

(28-02-2016 07:52 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Again, all arguments were "made up by someone". But it doesn't matter who made it up, what matters is the truth value of what is being stated...and trust me, I wouldn't have added it if I didn't think I could handle myself in a discussion on it Laugh out load

I note that you say this while distinctly failing to discuss it.

(28-02-2016 07:52 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  And what kind of historical evidence is good enough for you to render it "supported"?

Let's start with "any at all".

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Unbeliever's post
29-02-2016, 08:04 AM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(28-02-2016 07:52 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  ...a brilliant mind like mines...

Laugh out loadLaugh out loadLaugh out loadLaugh out loadLaugh out load

Such a brilliant mind that it hasn't yet managed to master elementary school grammar and spelling. The irony is priceless.

Laughat
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Grasshopper's post
29-02-2016, 08:48 AM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
"Argument from this...argument from that"

How one really could think that this is the way of figuring out how the universe around us works (philosophical armchair masturbation) is beyond me.

....and then entropy Laughat

How many times has it now been explained why entropy is a bad argument?

Would be real nice if any of those ID clowns actually could provide (additional to those fascinating but compeltely unsupported claims of "goddidit") a -somehwat complex- theory based on observation and data. A theory that consists of more than "not evolution.....and certainly not big bang either".

If it wasnt such a sad waste of brain tissue as in COWs case, it would -almost- be funny. Yet.....its a deliberate waste, so "suum cuique".
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-02-2016, 12:34 PM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(29-02-2016 08:48 AM)Deesse23 Wrote:  "Argument from this...argument from that"

How one really could think that this is the way of figuring out how the universe around us works (philosophical armchair masturbation) is beyond me.

....and then entropy Laughat

How many times has it now been explained why entropy is a bad argument?

Would be real nice if any of those ID clowns actually could provide (additional to those fascinating but compeltely unsupported claims of "goddidit") a -somehwat complex- theory based on observation and data. A theory that consists of more than "not evolution.....and certainly not big bang either".

If it wasnt such a sad waste of brain tissue as in COWs case, it would -almost- be funny. Yet.....its a deliberate waste, so "suum cuique".

Exactly ... the ultimate nature of Reality (in this universe anyway), has been proven to be non-intuitive. So his "arguments from .... bla bla bla", all based on what his brain finds to be intuitive, ("logical") are not only meaningless, but most likely, in light of what we know, incorrect.

The second issue for HIM, is that he claims to be religious. There is NO POINT in the gospels that his Jebus puts forward an "argument" for anything...ever. His own scripture tells him that faith is a virtue, given to people by their god. Paul NEVER said anything about making arguments or using logic to determine their faith positions. In that sense, he's not even, in any way, in union with his OWN faith traditions.

He's completely ignorant on both sides.

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
29-02-2016, 01:49 PM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(28-02-2016 08:11 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Try to follow me on this one, Call.

If you are a proponent of intelligent design - that is, you have a preconceived belief that intelligent design is true - then you, rather by definition, have a preconceived notion that evolution is false, because it violates your beliefs.

Nonsense. I can be a proponent of intelligent design and still believe in evolution as a process that was orchestrated by God. In other words; evolution via divine intervention.

In fact, there are Christians out there that believe that nonsense. I just don't.

So much for the "gotcha" attempt Laugh out load

(28-02-2016 07:17 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  I went over this earlier in the thread.

Well, go over it again.

(28-02-2016 07:17 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Every variant of the cosmological argument ultimately comes down to trying to use an incoherent, undefined, alternate version of the word "causality" that has nothing to do with the concept as it actually exists.

Nonsense. Leibniz's version just merely states that every entity that exists either exists based on the necessity of its own nature, or by an external cause. Now on the surface, those are really the only two options we have for things that exist. Unless you can give me another option (besides the whole "popping out of nothing" nonsense).

We know that the universe cannot exist based on the necessity of its own nature, therefore, the universe must be here via external cause.

Looks coherent to me. Now of course, this is where you do the typical atheistic over-analyzation of the argument and thereby finding a way to pull some miniscule objection out of your ass. I already know the game and watch it unfold.

(28-02-2016 07:17 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  They are also bare assertion, as we have no evidence that any entity which begins to exist outside the universe needs to have a cause

I am trying to figure out how the principal of "everything that BEGINS to exist has a cause"...I am trying to figure out what does being "outside" of the universe have to do with the principal.

Doesn't matter whether inside, or outside of the universe. Everything that begins to exist has a cause, period.

(28-02-2016 07:17 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  , and special pleading, as they posit that universes must have causes but that gods don't because... because.

No they don't. The kalam cosmological argument deals with this DIRECTLY by saying that a first cause is necessary because of the problems regarding infinite regress. An actual infinity cannot be possessed or traversed in reality, therefore, a First Cause is necessary...and the only thing outside the universe with causal power is...God.

(28-02-2016 07:17 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  The cosmological argument is bunk in all of its forms.

You really think you've debunked the cosmological argument? Laugh out load

(28-02-2016 07:17 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  No. Thoughts are neurochemical reactions taking place within the brain.

I said "thoughts aren't physical". That is my point. I am thinking of an apple right now...so until you can tell me how much does this thought weigh, how long it is, how deep it is, what does it smell like, and what color it is...until you can answer any of those questions, then just concede the point; thoughts aren't physical.

*predicts he will bring up a bullshit point regarding the neurons in the brain*

(28-02-2016 07:17 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  The modal formulation of the argument in particular also tends to rely on the assertion that the existence of a god is possible, but this is just an assertion, and relies on the same useless non-definition of "possible" that various conspiracy theorists make use of when they say that the Roswell crash was "possibly" aliens.

Um, no it isn't just an assertion. The proposition "The existence of God is possible"; that proposition, of course, is either true or false. Either God's existence is possible, or it isn't possible. No gray area.

Since we are dealing with the nature of necessity, it just so happens that if God's existence is even POSSIBLE, then it follows that God must exist, because a proposition cannot be possibly necessarily true, but actually false...because if it is actually false, then it wasn't possibly necessarily true in the first place.

So then the question is ultimately "Is the existence of God possible?". The answer is yes. There concept of God is a logically sound concept. The concept of God doesn't violate any logical laws. It is a logically valid/sound concept..therefore, it is at least possible for God to exist. Well, all possible necessary truths MUST be ACTUALLY necessarily true.

Therefore, God exists.

(28-02-2016 07:17 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Beyond that, though, the various issues depend on the exact formulation; since the argument is incoherent at its root, it gets "rephrased" a lot.

Just stick to the Modal version of the argument, sparky.

(28-02-2016 07:17 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  The premise is incoherent and false. The conclusion does not follow. The argument is only raised as a rather feeble means of attempting to make atheists think of themselves as morally bankrupt, which is pointless; even were it the case, that wouldn't change a thing.

The universe is not required to be nice.

The argument doesn't say anything about the moral capacity of atheists. Educate yourself on the argument, then get back with me.

(28-02-2016 07:17 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Let's start with "any at all".

We have historical evidence that Jesus of Nazareth existed. We have historical evidence that Jesus of Nazareth was crucified. And we have historical evidence that Jesus' followers believed that they saw him following his death and burial.

Do you dispute any of this?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-02-2016, 01:55 PM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(29-02-2016 08:04 AM)Grasshopper Wrote:  Laugh out loadLaugh out loadLaugh out loadLaugh out loadLaugh out load

Such a brilliant mind that it hasn't yet managed to master elementary school grammar and spelling. The irony is priceless.

Laughat

Oh the irony!! Weeping
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: