1818 replies to this topic

[Castiel]

http://www.longecity...480#entry642188


Castiel: B theory is what seems to be a consequence of relativity. If simultaneity is relative, if there is no present

to which all agree. How can it be anything other than b theory?

All do not agree, thats obvious.

Relativity has stood the test of time and all experiments done to date. Disagreements with its consequences is a foolish endeavor if you bring no theory to challenge relativity with predictions that can be tested experimentally.

Faith is not unreasonable and we need God to explain the universe

A.)What about explaining God? B.) Which God?

Many religions claim God is just. But they also IMPLICITLY claim God is unjust by giving different potential for salvation through offering different levels of evidence to different people. The paradox is that God doesn't do something special like rewrite messages with the stars in all the world major languages, because God doesn't want you to believe based on evidence that wouldn't be acceptable, he finds it praiseworthy to believe based on blind faith.... yet at the origin of many of these religions it is said that the original believers HAD STRONG EVIDENCE FROM DIRECT EXPOSURE TO MIRACLES, that is what convinced them, and that is what justifies the beliefs, we're merely supposed to follow along, to believe on hearsay, take their word for it.

That is even the religious beliefs have supposed evidence as reason and justification for existing. The unfairness of providing convincing evidence to some and not to others, the illogical act of not giving evidence if it's shown there really is no problem with giving evidence as it is claimed such was given to the originators and holy men of the religions. It all breaks down, and makes you realize that if there's any god it is most likely, and I would boldly say most certainly not the one of any of the man made religions.

[shadowhawk]

Castiel:
Many religions claim God is just. But they also IMPLICITLY claim God is unjust by giving different potential for salvation through offering different levels of evidence to different people. The paradox is that God doesn't do something special like rewrite messages with the stars in all the world major languages, because God doesn't want you to believe based on evidence that wouldn't be acceptable, he finds it praiseworthy to believe based on blind faith.... yet at the origin of many of these religions it is said that the original believers HAD STRONG EVIDENCE FROM DIRECT EXPOSURE TO MIRACLES, that is what convinced them, and that is what justifies the beliefs, we're merely supposed to follow along, to believe on hearsay, take their word for it.

ShadowHawk, SH: This is an example of the man in the moon argument. God should post a photograph of himself on the moon, for all to see and then we would believe. The moon itself is not enough. Here we have to write in all the worlds languages, using the stars, “I exist.” No second hand miricals either, we are all doubting Thomases. Given this demand for proof, do you believe anything in history?

Castiel:
That is even the religious beliefs have supposed evidence as reason and justification for existing. The unfairness of providing convincing evidence to some and not to others, the illogical act of not giving evidence if it's shown there really is no problem with giving evidence as it is claimed such was given to the originators and holy men of the religions. It all breaks down, and makes you realize that if there's any god it is most likely, and I would boldly say most certainly not the one of any of the man made religions.

SH: You do know what you don’t know.

[Castiel]

ShadowHawk, SH: This is an example of the man in the moon argument. God should post a photograph of himself on the moon, for all to see and then we would believe. The moon itself is not enough. Here we have to write in all the worlds languages, using the stars, “I exist.” No second hand miricals either, we are all doubting Thomases. Given this demand for proof, do you believe anything in history?

IF THERE's ANY REAL PROBLEM WITH GIVING EVIDENCE then why didn't he just provide some nebulous fable to one man instead of doing miracles and that's it? Why do you suppose EVIDENCE was provided to what are claimed to be thousands? The catholics even say that recent miracles like fatima, iirc, affected tens of thousands. If GOD doesn't want or doesn't have to provide reasonable evidence, then none should be given so, some hallucinations in a few men would suffice. Why is it said EVIDENCE is given? You know very well that without the claim of SUPERNATURAL MIRACLES AS ROOT EVIDENCE there wouldn't be any reasonable reason to even give 2 cents of one's time to such claims.

BTW it just so happens that many religions claim god is omnipotent not some feeble historian. PERFORMING MIRACLES PLAINLY CONTRADICTS ANY CLAIM THAT GOD DOESN'T WANT TO PROVIDE EVIDENCE, AND IT SO FOLLOWS LOGICALLY THAT IF HE CAN DO IT FOR SOME HE CAN DO IT FOR ALL,

Your so called man on the moon or better stated GIVING EVERYONE REASONABLE EVIDENCE argument is not wrong in anyway, maybe if you said he didn't give anyone evidence you'd have a leg to stand on. But once evidence is given to some there is no logical reason not to give it to all. What is this obsession, with rumor, hearsay, as something vital to spreading the message all while we all know hearsay is not to be trusted so a god that demands trust in hearsay for most while providing evidence to a few is unjust and irrational if not malicious.

Edited by Castiel, 12 February 2014 - 01:49 AM.

[shadowhawk]

ShadowHawk, SH: This is an example of the man in the moon argument. God should post a photograph of himself on the moon, for all to see and then we would believe. The moon itself is not enough. Here we have to write in all the worlds languages, using the stars, “I exist.” No second hand miricals either, we are all doubting Thomases. Given this demand for proof, do you believe anything in history?

IF THERE's ANY REAL PROBLEM WITH GIVING EVIDENCE than why didn't he just provide some nebulous fable to one man instead of doing miracles and that's it? Why do you suppose EVIDENCE was provided to what are claimed to be thousands? The catholics even say that recent miracles like fatima, iirc, affected tens of thousands. If GOD doesn't want or doesn't have to provide reasonable evidence, then none should be given so, some hallucinations in a few men would suffice. Why is it said EVIDENCE is given? You know very well that without the claim of SUPERNATURAL MIRACLES AS ROOT EVIDENCE there wouldn't be any reasonable reason to even give 2 cents of one's time to such claims.

BTW it just so happens that many religions claim god is omnipotent not some feeble historian. PERFORMING MIRACLES PLAINLY CONTRADICTS ANY CLAIM THAT GOD DOESN'T WANT TO PROVIDE EVIDENCE, AND IT SO FOLLOWS LOGICALLY THAT IF HE CAN DO IT FOR SOME HE CAN DO IT FOR ALL,

Your so called man on the moon or better stated GIVING EVERYONE REASONABLE EVIDENCE argument is not wrong in anyway, maybe if you said he didn't give anyone evidence you'd have a leg to stand on. But once evidence is given to some there is no logical reason not to give it to all. What is this obsession, with rumor, hearsay, as something vital to spreading the message all while we all know hearsay is not to be trusted so a god that demands trust in hearsay for most while providing evidence to a few is unjust and irrational if not malicious.

THE EVIDENCE IS WHAT IT IS. You don't get to make it up or demand it is false if it doesn't fit your demands. Can you imagine everyone doing this?

[Castiel]

ShadowHawk, SH: This is an example of the man in the moon argument. God should post a photograph of himself on the moon, for all to see and then we would believe. The moon itself is not enough. Here we have to write in all the worlds languages, using the stars, “I exist.” No second hand miricals either, we are all doubting Thomases. Given this demand for proof, do you believe anything in history?

IF THERE's ANY REAL PROBLEM WITH GIVING EVIDENCE than why didn't he just provide some nebulous fable to one man instead of doing miracles and that's it? Why do you suppose EVIDENCE was provided to what are claimed to be thousands? The catholics even say that recent miracles like fatima, iirc, affected tens of thousands. If GOD doesn't want or doesn't have to provide reasonable evidence, then none should be given so, some hallucinations in a few men would suffice. Why is it said EVIDENCE is given? You know very well that without the claim of SUPERNATURAL MIRACLES AS ROOT EVIDENCE there wouldn't be any reasonable reason to even give 2 cents of one's time to such claims.

BTW it just so happens that many religions claim god is omnipotent not some feeble historian. PERFORMING MIRACLES PLAINLY CONTRADICTS ANY CLAIM THAT GOD DOESN'T WANT TO PROVIDE EVIDENCE, AND IT SO FOLLOWS LOGICALLY THAT IF HE CAN DO IT FOR SOME HE CAN DO IT FOR ALL,

Your so called man on the moon or better stated GIVING EVERYONE REASONABLE EVIDENCE argument is not wrong in anyway, maybe if you said he didn't give anyone evidence you'd have a leg to stand on. But once evidence is given to some there is no logical reason not to give it to all. What is this obsession, with rumor, hearsay, as something vital to spreading the message all while we all know hearsay is not to be trusted so a god that demands trust in hearsay for most while providing evidence to a few is unjust and irrational if not malicious.

THE EVIDENCE IS WHAT IT IS. You don't get to make it up or demand it is false if it doesn't fit your demands. Can you imagine everyone doing this?

The problem is MOST MUST RELY ON HEARSAY OR RUMORS as the source of their beliefs. While if such hearsay is true some were provided with what seems like substantially more evidence.

So the problem is not with the evidence per se, under the assumption it was actually given and it is not unfounded rumors, but the problem is with the fact it is UNFAIR TO GIVE SOME MORE EVIDENCE THAN OTHERS(if we do believe its true what's been written, then it is substantially more evidence to some than others).

We know that in order to believe at all we must believe at least someone had exposure to strong evidence, but this implies unfairness, given omnipotence it is fair to ask if evidence is necessary to convince the initial seed why not use evidence to convince all, why demand reliance on hearsay, and penalize those that don't believe said hearsay? It seems logical to assume it was considered necessary to provide evidence for the initial seed in order to convince it, yet if this is necessary to convince it as it is also necessary to convince large segments of the future population, evidence would logically be more effective than hearsay.

From omnipotence, fairness and the provision of evidence to believers, it seems to follow that similar degrees of evidence would be provided to all. We'd have to invoke the unsatisfactory works in mysterious ways to explain why most must rely on far less evidendence to convince them, and covince it must because if you're not convinced how can you take it for the truth? NOTE: arguments for the existence of some abstract God do not necessarily constitute arguments in favor of some particular religious myth.

Edited by Castiel, 12 February 2014 - 02:24 AM.

[shadowhawk]

SUMMARY OF TOPIC DISCUSSION.
ex nihilo nihil fit
omne vivum ex vivo
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. EVIDENCE FROM HUMAN DESIRE.
Premise 1: Every natural, innate desire in us corresponds to some real object that can satisfy that desire.

Premise 2: But there exists in us a desire which nothing in time, nothing on earth, no creature can satisfy.

Conclusion: Therefore there must exist something more than time, earth and creatures, which can satisfy this desire.

This something is what people call "God" and "life with God
forever.

http://www.longecity...ty/#entry616422
http://www.longecity...450#entry641771
http://www.longecity...450#entry641824
http://www.longecity...450#entry641872
http://www.longecity...450#entry641877
http://www.longecity...450#entry641883
http://www.longecity...450#entry641893
http://www.longecity...450#entry641897
http://www.longecity...450#entry641901
http://www.longecity...450#entry641915
http://www.longecity...450#entry641915
http://www.longecity...480#entry641941
http://www.longecity...480#entry642096
http://www.longecity...480#entry642116
http://www.longecity...480#entry642131

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. KALAM COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT FOR GODS EXISTENCE

1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause.

2) The universe began to exist.

3) Therefore, the universe has a cause.

http://www.longecity...ty/#entry617242
http://www.longecity...270#entry634650
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. THE COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT FROM CONTINGENCY
http://www.longecity..._30#entry619063
The cosmological argument comes in a variety of forms. We examined the Kalaam above. Here’s a simple version of the famous version from contingency offered as a further proof for God:

1. Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause.

2. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.
http://www.longecity..._30#entry619676
3. The universe exists.

4. Therefore, the universe has an explanation of its existence (from 1, 3).

5. Therefore, the explanation of the universe’s existence is God (from 2, 4).
http://www.longecity..._30#entry619063

a variation of the Cosmological argument from Contingency,
http://www.longecity...180#entry629626
http://www.longecity...210#entry629767
1. I exist.
2. If I exist something must have always existed because you don’t get something from nothing.
3. There are only two choices for an eternal ‘something’: (a) The universe; (b) God.
4. The universe is not eternal.
5. Therefore, God exists.

Then I presented W.L. Craig’s additional defense of the Cosmological argument after the Lawrence Krauss debate.
http://www.longecity...210#entry630446
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. EVOLUTIONARY ARGUMENTS FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD
http://www.longecity..._60#entry621845

1. Kalam argument used with cause and effect Evolution as evdience for God.
http://www.longecity..._60#entry621845
2.E-coli proof of evolution???
http://www.longecity..._60#entry621845
http://www.longecity..._90#entry622255

3.PALEY’S old watch argument for design.
http://www.longecity..._90#entry622077
1) The element common to both watches and life is: Both are preceded by a language (plan) before they are built

2) The essential difference between naturally occurring pattern and an intelligent design is language

3) All language comes from a mind

4) Therefore all things containing the logic of language are designed


4. HILBERTS HOTEL http://www.longecity..._90#entry622260

5. MY BOOKCASE AND THE MOVING BALL. http://www.longecity..._90#entry622414

6. NECESSARY BEING
http://www.longecity..._90#entry623130

7. BIG BANG http://www.longecity..._90#entry622862

8. SHAKESPEARE’S HAMLET
http://www.longecity...120#entry624716

9. TESTS FOR DISCOVERING THE REAL WORLD.
http://www.longecity...120#entry625613

10. EVIDENCE FOR GODS EXISTENCE.
http://www.longecity...150#entry625790

11. FIVE ARGUMENTS FOR GODS EXISTENCE. We have discussed two of these.
http://www.longecity...150#entry626289

12. RANDOM CHANCE AND EVOLUTION DEFEATS NATURALISTIC ATHEISM.
http://www.longecity...180#entry627545


6. SUMMARY OF FINE TUNING

1. The fine-tuning of the universe is due to either physical necessity, chance, or design.

2. It is not due to physical necessity or chance.

3. Therefore, it is due to design.

I have shown that the cosmos has the appearance of being “Finely Tuned,” for life bu a designer. Dozens of constants (laws) exist and if they varied only slightly life would not exist.
http://www.longecity...180#entry629011
----------------------------------------------------

Where is the evidence to the contrary? There is none no matter how loudly the Atheists scream or try to derail the discussion of the topic with logical fallacies or violations of the forum rules and guidelines, contrary evidence.
-------------------------------------------------------------
I illustrated this by the “DART THROWER.” http://www.longecity...180#entry629199

The darts illustrate the constants that are aimed at the bull’s-eye of life. All of them are so finely aimed that it would be highly improbable that they could hit the target by blind random chance,
---------------------------------------------------------
Next I presented Dr. Walter L. Bradley, argument for Fine Tuning. He brought up the subject of math which we will turn to again, next.
http://www.longecity...180#entry629222
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Then I went off track with this argument, a variation of the Cosmological argument from Contingency,
http://www.longecity...180#entry629626
http://www.longecity...210#entry629767
1. I exist.
2. If I exist something must have always existed because you don’t get something from nothing.
3. There are only two choices for an eternal ‘something’: (a) The universe; (b) God.
4. The universe is not eternal.
5. Therefore, God exists.

Then I presented W.L. Craig’s additional defense of the Cosmological argument after the Lawrence Krauss.
http://www.longecity...210#entry630446

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Then I turned to Dr. Nancy Cartwright’s paper, “NO GOD, MO LAWS.” Which is directly related to the Fine Tuning argument.
http://www.longecity...210#entry630491
-------------------------------------------------------------------
MATH AS FINE TUNING EVIDENCE FOR GOD.
http://www.longecity...240#entry632454
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE MORAL ARGUMENT.
http://www.longecity...270#entry634645
1. If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.
2. Objective moral values and duties do exist.
3. Therefore, God exists

Definition of terms:
http://www.longecity...270#entry634870
http://www.longecity...270#entry635144

Euthyphro Dilemma:
http://www.longecity...300#entry635604

EVIL AS PROOF OF GOD.
http://www.longecity...300#entry635613

APPLYING MORAL VIEWS
““Lets see how you apply this. In order to win the second world war we believed it was right to carpet bomb Germany killing men, women and children. The Nazis fired rockets into Great Brittan with little concern who they hit. Each side believed in their own sides moral position.”
http://www.longecity...270#entry635315

Based on your view, were they both right? Neither was right. One or the other was right.”
http://www.longecity...300#entry635811
http://www.longecity...330#entry637241

SLAVERY
http://www.longecity...300#entry635846


The ONTOLOGICQAL ARGUMENT from the Possibility
of God's Existence to His Actuality
http://www.longecity...300#entry636722
1. It is possible that a maximally great being exists.

2. If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world.

3. If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.

4. If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.

5. If a maximally great being exists in the actual world, then a maximally great being exists.

6. Therefore, a maximally great being exists.

http://www.longecity...330#entry636734
http://www.longecity...330#entry636736
http://www.longecity...330#entry636990

A Sign as Evidence:
http://www.longecity...330#entry637232

SUMMARY TO THIS POINT
http://www.longecity...360#entry638337

ATTEMPTS TO DERAIL THE TOPIC.
http://www.longecity...360#entry638354

Other Arguments for Existence of God
http://www.longecity...360#entry638545
The evangelists of Nothing
http://www.longecity...360#entry638545

Forum guidelines and rules.
http://www.longecity...390#entry639554

30 arguments for Gods existence. Dr. Peter Kreeft.
http://www.longecity...390#entry639566

johnross47 derails the topic
http://www.longecity...420#entry639980

sthira derails the topic
http://www.longecity...420#entry640010

BACK ON TOPIC.

MIND / BODY DUALISM
http://www.longecity...420#entry640162

EVIDENCE
http://www.longecity...420#entry640237
http://www.longecity...420#entry640421

QUANTUM ERASER AND INFORMATION
http://www.longecity...420#entry641096
http://www.longecity...450#entry641311

SUMMARY TO THIS POINT
http://www.longecity...450#entry641619

GODELS INCOMPLETENESS
http://www.longecity...480#entry641947
“Anything you can draw a circle around cannot explain itself without referring to something outside the circle – something you have to assume but cannot prove.”
http://www.longecity...480#entry642183
“I am lying.”
1. Faith and Reason are not enemies. In fact, the exact opposite is true! One is absolutely necessary for the other to exist. All reasoning ultimately traces back to faith in something that you cannot prove.
2. All closed systems depend on something outside the system.
3. You can always draw a bigger circle but there will still be something outside the circle.
------------------------------------------------------
1. There has to be something outside that circle. Something which we have to assume but cannot prove
2. The universe as we know it is finite – finite matter, finite energy, finite space and 13.8 billion years time
3. The universe (all matter, energy, space and time) cannot explain itself
4. Whatever is outside the biggest circle is boundless. So by definition it is not possible to draw a circle around it.
5. If we draw a circle around all matter, energy, space and time and apply Gödel’s theorem, then we know what is outside that circle is not matter, is not energy, is not space and is not time. Because all the matter and energy are inside the circle. It’s immaterial.
6. Whatever is outside the biggest circle is not a system – i.e. is not an assemblage of parts. Otherwise we could draw a circle around them. The thing outside the biggest circle is indivisible.
7. Whatever is outside the biggest circle is an uncaused cause, because you can always draw a circle around an effect. Is it God? You will need faith just as in everything else.
--------------------------------------------
http://www.longecity...480#entry642801

1. All non-trivial computational systems are incomplete
2. The universe is a non-trivial computational system
3. Therefore the universe is incomplete

[shadowhawk]

ShadowHawk, SH: This is an example of the man in the moon argument. God should post a photograph of himself on the moon, for all to see and then we would believe. The moon itself is not enough. Here we have to write in all the worlds languages, using the stars, “I exist.” No second hand miricals either, we are all doubting Thomases. Given this demand for proof, do you believe anything in history?

IF THERE's ANY REAL PROBLEM WITH GIVING EVIDENCE than why didn't he just provide some nebulous fable to one man instead of doing miracles and that's it? Why do you suppose EVIDENCE was provided to what are claimed to be thousands? The catholics even say that recent miracles like fatima, iirc, affected tens of thousands. If GOD doesn't want or doesn't have to provide reasonable evidence, then none should be given so, some hallucinations in a few men would suffice. Why is it said EVIDENCE is given? You know very well that without the claim of SUPERNATURAL MIRACLES AS ROOT EVIDENCE there wouldn't be any reasonable reason to even give 2 cents of one's time to such claims.

BTW it just so happens that many religions claim god is omnipotent not some feeble historian. PERFORMING MIRACLES PLAINLY CONTRADICTS ANY CLAIM THAT GOD DOESN'T WANT TO PROVIDE EVIDENCE, AND IT SO FOLLOWS LOGICALLY THAT IF HE CAN DO IT FOR SOME HE CAN DO IT FOR ALL,

Your so called man on the moon or better stated GIVING EVERYONE REASONABLE EVIDENCE argument is not wrong in anyway, maybe if you said he didn't give anyone evidence you'd have a leg to stand on. But once evidence is given to some there is no logical reason not to give it to all. What is this obsession, with rumor, hearsay, as something vital to spreading the message all while we all know hearsay is not to be trusted so a god that demands trust in hearsay for most while providing evidence to a few is unjust and irrational if not malicious.

THE EVIDENCE IS WHAT IT IS. You don't get to make it up or demand it is false if it doesn't fit your demands. Can you imagine everyone doing this?

The problem is MOST MUST RELY ON HEARSAY OR RUMORS as the source of their beliefs. While if such hearsay is true some were provided with what seems like substantially more evidence.

So the problem is not with the evidence per se, under the assumption it was actually given and it is not unfounded rumors, but the problem is with the fact it is UNFAIR TO GIVE SOME MORE EVIDENCE THAN OTHERS(if we do believe its true what's been written, then it is substantially more evidence to some than others).

We know that in order to believe at all we must believe at least someone had exposure to strong evidence, but this implies unfairness, given omnipotence it is fair to ask if evidence is necessary to convince the initial seed why not use evidence to convince all, why demand reliance on hearsay, and penalize those that don't believe said hearsay? It seems logical to assume it was considered necessary to provide evidence for the initial seed in order to convince it, yet if this is necessary to convince it as it is also necessary to convince large segments of the future population, evidence would logically be more effective than hearsay.

From omnipotence, fairness and the provision of evidence to believers, it seems to follow that similar degrees of evidence would be provided to all. We'd have to invoke the unsatisfactory works in mysterious ways to explain why most must rely on far less evidendence to convince them, and covince it must because if you're not convinced how can you take it for the truth? NOTE: arguments for the existence of some abstract God do not necessarily constitute arguments in favor of some particular religious myth.

You have exactly the same evidence I have. Is it unfair? Most people believe or disbelieve based on emotions and other reasons beside evidence. Why is there something rather than nothing? Your belief demands proof. Where is it? Godel proves you need faith to make sense out of anything.

[Castiel]

ShadowHawk, SH: This is an example of the man in the moon argument. God should post a photograph of himself on the moon, for all to see and then we would believe. The moon itself is not enough. Here we have to write in all the worlds languages, using the stars, “I exist.” No second hand miricals either, we are all doubting Thomases. Given this demand for proof, do you believe anything in history?

IF THERE's ANY REAL PROBLEM WITH GIVING EVIDENCE than why didn't he just provide some nebulous fable to one man instead of doing miracles and that's it? Why do you suppose EVIDENCE was provided to what are claimed to be thousands? The catholics even say that recent miracles like fatima, iirc, affected tens of thousands. If GOD doesn't want or doesn't have to provide reasonable evidence, then none should be given so, some hallucinations in a few men would suffice. Why is it said EVIDENCE is given? You know very well that without the claim of SUPERNATURAL MIRACLES AS ROOT EVIDENCE there wouldn't be any reasonable reason to even give 2 cents of one's time to such claims.

BTW it just so happens that many religions claim god is omnipotent not some feeble historian. PERFORMING MIRACLES PLAINLY CONTRADICTS ANY CLAIM THAT GOD DOESN'T WANT TO PROVIDE EVIDENCE, AND IT SO FOLLOWS LOGICALLY THAT IF HE CAN DO IT FOR SOME HE CAN DO IT FOR ALL,

Your so called man on the moon or better stated GIVING EVERYONE REASONABLE EVIDENCE argument is not wrong in anyway, maybe if you said he didn't give anyone evidence you'd have a leg to stand on. But once evidence is given to some there is no logical reason not to give it to all. What is this obsession, with rumor, hearsay, as something vital to spreading the message all while we all know hearsay is not to be trusted so a god that demands trust in hearsay for most while providing evidence to a few is unjust and irrational if not malicious.

THE EVIDENCE IS WHAT IT IS. You don't get to make it up or demand it is false if it doesn't fit your demands. Can you imagine everyone doing this?

The problem is MOST MUST RELY ON HEARSAY OR RUMORS as the source of their beliefs. While if such hearsay is true some were provided with what seems like substantially more evidence.

So the problem is not with the evidence per se, under the assumption it was actually given and it is not unfounded rumors, but the problem is with the fact it is UNFAIR TO GIVE SOME MORE EVIDENCE THAN OTHERS(if we do believe its true what's been written, then it is substantially more evidence to some than others).

We know that in order to believe at all we must believe at least someone had exposure to strong evidence, but this implies unfairness, given omnipotence it is fair to ask if evidence is necessary to convince the initial seed why not use evidence to convince all, why demand reliance on hearsay, and penalize those that don't believe said hearsay? It seems logical to assume it was considered necessary to provide evidence for the initial seed in order to convince it, yet if this is necessary to convince it as it is also necessary to convince large segments of the future population, evidence would logically be more effective than hearsay.

From omnipotence, fairness and the provision of evidence to believers, it seems to follow that similar degrees of evidence would be provided to all. We'd have to invoke the unsatisfactory works in mysterious ways to explain why most must rely on far less evidendence to convince them, and covince it must because if you're not convinced how can you take it for the truth? NOTE: arguments for the existence of some abstract God do not necessarily constitute arguments in favor of some particular religious myth.

You have exactly the same evidence I have. Is it unfair? Most people believe or disbelieve based on emotions and other reasons beside evidence. Why is there something rather than nothing? Your belief demands proof. Where is it? Godel proves you need faith to make sense out of anything.

we're not talking about you and me, we're talking about ALL believers. Assuming say christianity is true, DO YOU HAVE THE SAME AMOUNT OF EVIDENCE AS SAY THE APOSTLES who directly witnessed and touched and experienced the miracles(assuming it is true)? How about all those blind, dead, ill, possessed, etc who are said to have directly been affected by cures? doubters who are said to have touched wounds of the resurrected? etc?

If we go into catholicism, there is all the miracles attributed to saints affecting some individuals throughout history. IMHO, a direct witness or even a person directly affected by some miracle like cure has more evidence than you at least as it pertains to a particular religion.

Again general arguments about abstract theist gods do not necessarily imply the gods described in any particular religion are true.

Edited by Castiel, 12 February 2014 - 03:02 AM.

[Duchykins]

http://www.longecity...480#entry642188


Castiel: B theory is what seems to be a consequence of relativity. If simultaneity is relative, if there is no present

to which all agree. How can it be anything other than b theory?

All do not agree, thats obvious.

Correction: most physicists and philosophers lean toward B theory, the minority that doesn't has a strange tendency to be hyper religious and infatuated with cosmological arguments.

[shadowhawk]

http://www.longecity...480#entry642188


Castiel: B theory is what seems to be a consequence of relativity. If simultaneity is relative, if there is no present

to which all agree. How can it be anything other than b theory?

All do not agree, thats obvious.

Correction: most physicists and philosophers lean toward B theory, the minority that doesn't has a strange tendency to be hyper religious and infatuated with cosmological arguments.

------------------------------------------------------
Appeal to Ridicule
1. X, which is some form of ridicule is presented (typically directed at the claim).
2. Therefore claim C is false.
http://www.nizkor.or...o-ridicule.html
Biased Sample
1. Sample S, which is biased, is taken from population P.
2. Conclusion C is drawn about Population P based on S.
http://www.nizkor.or...sed-sample.html
Genetic Fallacy
1. The origin of a claim or thing is presented.
2. The claim is true(or false) or the thing is supported (or discredited).
http://www.nizkor.or...ic-fallacy.html
---------------------------------------------------

If temporal becoming isn't real, how can cause and effect be real? It must be an illusion. Doesn't that undermine all of science? the B theory of time denies temporal becoming, not causal relations (which is what science needs to be successful). What does this do to evolution for example? In other words, B theorists would agree that the tree falling on the house caused the roof to cave in, but would deny that the falling of the tree was an event that came into being at time t1 and then went out of being at time t2. So while all events exist timelessly in the block universe, they are ordered by causal relations. Dinosaurs are still romping the earth.

But that is what I find so odd. When a football breaks the glass window, the glass becomes broken by the ball, but on the B-theory of time it was already broken for eternity. So, it is impossible for the ball to break the glass. So I think cause and effect presuppose temporal becoming.

We at least live in a world we experience as temporal. ON A PRACTICAL LEVEL we are all A theorists. B theorists all live as A theorists and that has to say something about reality in a caused world. B theory fits more closely with theological time which we do not experience. God is the alpha and omega at the same time. God is timeless. The creation is in time, incomplete, always becoming. God is never less than complete while the creation experiences time as becoming. So both A and B are true relative to their dimension.

What does this do to the KALAM argument? Craig thinks it ends it but he holds an A. Theory of time. http://www.reasonabl...me-and-creation
http://jwwartick.com/tag/b-theory/
http://www.amazon.co...l god paul helm
http://www.amazon.co...l god paul helm
http://www.amazon.co...l god paul helm

[shadowhawk]

ShadowHawk, SH: This is an example of the man in the moon argument. God should post a photograph of himself on the moon, for all to see and then we would believe. The moon itself is not enough. Here we have to write in all the worlds languages, using the stars, “I exist.” No second hand miricals either, we are all doubting Thomases. Given this demand for proof, do you believe anything in history?

IF THERE's ANY REAL PROBLEM WITH GIVING EVIDENCE than why didn't he just provide some nebulous fable to one man instead of doing miracles and that's it? Why do you suppose EVIDENCE was provided to what are claimed to be thousands? The catholics even say that recent miracles like fatima, iirc, affected tens of thousands. If GOD doesn't want or doesn't have to provide reasonable evidence, then none should be given so, some hallucinations in a few men would suffice. Why is it said EVIDENCE is given? You know very well that without the claim of SUPERNATURAL MIRACLES AS ROOT EVIDENCE there wouldn't be any reasonable reason to even give 2 cents of one's time to such claims.

BTW it just so happens that many religions claim god is omnipotent not some feeble historian. PERFORMING MIRACLES PLAINLY CONTRADICTS ANY CLAIM THAT GOD DOESN'T WANT TO PROVIDE EVIDENCE, AND IT SO FOLLOWS LOGICALLY THAT IF HE CAN DO IT FOR SOME HE CAN DO IT FOR ALL,

Your so called man on the moon or better stated GIVING EVERYONE REASONABLE EVIDENCE argument is not wrong in anyway, maybe if you said he didn't give anyone evidence you'd have a leg to stand on. But once evidence is given to some there is no logical reason not to give it to all. What is this obsession, with rumor, hearsay, as something vital to spreading the message all while we all know hearsay is not to be trusted so a god that demands trust in hearsay for most while providing evidence to a few is unjust and irrational if not malicious.

THE EVIDENCE IS WHAT IT IS. You don't get to make it up or demand it is false if it doesn't fit your demands. Can you imagine everyone doing this?

The problem is MOST MUST RELY ON HEARSAY OR RUMORS as the source of their beliefs. While if such hearsay is true some were provided with what seems like substantially more evidence.

So the problem is not with the evidence per se, under the assumption it was actually given and it is not unfounded rumors, but the problem is with the fact it is UNFAIR TO GIVE SOME MORE EVIDENCE THAN OTHERS(if we do believe its true what's been written, then it is substantially more evidence to some than others).

We know that in order to believe at all we must believe at least someone had exposure to strong evidence, but this implies unfairness, given omnipotence it is fair to ask if evidence is necessary to convince the initial seed why not use evidence to convince all, why demand reliance on hearsay, and penalize those that don't believe said hearsay? It seems logical to assume it was considered necessary to provide evidence for the initial seed in order to convince it, yet if this is necessary to convince it as it is also necessary to convince large segments of the future population, evidence would logically be more effective than hearsay.

From omnipotence, fairness and the provision of evidence to believers, it seems to follow that similar degrees of evidence would be provided to all. We'd have to invoke the unsatisfactory works in mysterious ways to explain why most must rely on far less evidendence to convince them, and covince it must because if you're not convinced how can you take it for the truth? NOTE: arguments for the existence of some abstract God do not necessarily constitute arguments in favor of some particular religious myth.

You have exactly the same evidence I have. Is it unfair? Most people believe or disbelieve based on emotions and other reasons beside evidence. Why is there something rather than nothing? Your belief demands proof. Where is it? Godel proves you need faith to make sense out of anything.

we're not talking about you and me, we're talking about ALL believers. Assuming say christianity is true, DO YOU HAVE THE SAME AMOUNT OF EVIDENCE AS SAY THE APOSTLES who directly witnessed and touched and experienced the miracles(assuming it is true)? How about all those blind, dead, ill, possessed, etc who are said to have directly been affected by cures? doubters who are said to have touched wounds of the resurrected? etc?

If we go into catholicism, there is all the miracles attributed to saints affecting some individuals throughout history. IMHO, a direct witness or even a person directly affected by some miracle like cure has more evidence than you at least as it pertains to a particular religion.

Again general arguments about abstract theist gods do not necessarily imply the gods described in any particular religion are true.

But we are talking about us. No two people have the same experience. Because I didn’t know John Kennedy personally does that mean it is unfair that I believe in him and you don’t. Nor, does it mean I arrived at my belief without evidence and you did! I have faith and you don’t?

We have been discussing evidence for God. In Philosophy and Theology, that is called General revelation. You, like I have accepted by faith, our answers. Soon we will turn to special revelation, why Christianity.

[Duchykins]

http://www.longecity...480#entry642188


Castiel: B theory is what seems to be a consequence of relativity. If simultaneity is relative, if there is no present

to which all agree. How can it be anything other than b theory?

All do not agree, thats obvious.

Correction: most physicists and philosophers lean toward B theory, the minority that doesn't has a strange tendency to be hyper religious and infatuated with cosmological arguments.

------------------------------------------------------
Appeal to Ridicule
1. X, which is some form of ridicule is presented (typically directed at the claim).
2. Therefore claim C is false.
http://www.nizkor.or...o-ridicule.html
Biased Sample
1. Sample S, which is biased, is taken from population P.
2. Conclusion C is drawn about Population P based on S.
http://www.nizkor.or...sed-sample.html
Genetic Fallacy
1. The origin of a claim or thing is presented.
2. The claim is true(or false) or the thing is supported (or discredited).
http://www.nizkor.or...ic-fallacy.html
---------------------------------------------------

If temporal becoming isn't real, how can cause and effect be real? It must be an illusion. Doesn't that undermine all of science? the B theory of time denies temporal becoming, not causal relations (which is what science needs to be successful). What does this do to evolution for example? In other words, B theorists would agree that the tree falling on the house caused the roof to cave in, but would deny that the falling of the tree was an event that came into being at time t1 and then went out of being at time t2. So while all events exist timelessly in the block universe, they are ordered by causal relations. Dinosaurs are still romping the earth.

But that is what I find so odd. When a football breaks the glass window, the glass becomes broken by the ball, but on the B-theory of time it was already broken for eternity. So, it is impossible for the ball to break the glass. So I think cause and effect presuppose temporal becoming.

We at least live in a world we experience as temporal. ON A PRACTICAL LEVEL we are all A theorists. B theorists all live as A theorists and that has to say something about reality in a caused world. B theory fits more closely with theological time which we do not experience. God is the alpha and omega at the same time. God is timeless. The creation is in time, incomplete, always becoming. God is never less than complete while the creation experiences time as becoming. So both A and B are true relative to their dimension.

What does this do to the KALAM argument? Craig thinks it ends it but he holds an A. Theory of time. http://www.reasonabl...me-and-creation
http://jwwartick.com/tag/b-theory/
http://www.amazon.co...l god paul helm
http://www.amazon.co...l god paul helm
http://www.amazon.co...l god paul helm

Yeah you can copy paste the structures of fallacies you clearly have little understanding of, like ad hominem, but that doesn't change the fact that what I said is gemerally true and it wasn't structured to be an argument. It's just the way it is. The general scientific consensus leans toward B theory because it has a bit of supportive evidence in quantum mechanics. A theory has no supportive evidence and can be dismissed through logic alone.

If you want to side with B theory because you think it supports your idea of god, that's cool. As long as you understand that it removes the rug from underneath the KCA, so I don't expect you to be trying to bring it up again. A and B theory are mutually exclusive. So make up your mind.

[Castiel]

ShadowHawk, SH: This is an example of the man in the moon argument. God should post a photograph of himself on the moon, for all to see and then we would believe. The moon itself is not enough. Here we have to write in all the worlds languages, using the stars, “I exist.” No second hand miricals either, we are all doubting Thomases. Given this demand for proof, do you believe anything in history?

IF THERE's ANY REAL PROBLEM WITH GIVING EVIDENCE than why didn't he just provide some nebulous fable to one man instead of doing miracles and that's it? Why do you suppose EVIDENCE was provided to what are claimed to be thousands? The catholics even say that recent miracles like fatima, iirc, affected tens of thousands. If GOD doesn't want or doesn't have to provide reasonable evidence, then none should be given so, some hallucinations in a few men would suffice. Why is it said EVIDENCE is given? You know very well that without the claim of SUPERNATURAL MIRACLES AS ROOT EVIDENCE there wouldn't be any reasonable reason to even give 2 cents of one's time to such claims.

BTW it just so happens that many religions claim god is omnipotent not some feeble historian. PERFORMING MIRACLES PLAINLY CONTRADICTS ANY CLAIM THAT GOD DOESN'T WANT TO PROVIDE EVIDENCE, AND IT SO FOLLOWS LOGICALLY THAT IF HE CAN DO IT FOR SOME HE CAN DO IT FOR ALL,

Your so called man on the moon or better stated GIVING EVERYONE REASONABLE EVIDENCE argument is not wrong in anyway, maybe if you said he didn't give anyone evidence you'd have a leg to stand on. But once evidence is given to some there is no logical reason not to give it to all. What is this obsession, with rumor, hearsay, as something vital to spreading the message all while we all know hearsay is not to be trusted so a god that demands trust in hearsay for most while providing evidence to a few is unjust and irrational if not malicious.

THE EVIDENCE IS WHAT IT IS. You don't get to make it up or demand it is false if it doesn't fit your demands. Can you imagine everyone doing this?

The problem is MOST MUST RELY ON HEARSAY OR RUMORS as the source of their beliefs. While if such hearsay is true some were provided with what seems like substantially more evidence.

So the problem is not with the evidence per se, under the assumption it was actually given and it is not unfounded rumors, but the problem is with the fact it is UNFAIR TO GIVE SOME MORE EVIDENCE THAN OTHERS(if we do believe its true what's been written, then it is substantially more evidence to some than others).

We know that in order to believe at all we must believe at least someone had exposure to strong evidence, but this implies unfairness, given omnipotence it is fair to ask if evidence is necessary to convince the initial seed why not use evidence to convince all, why demand reliance on hearsay, and penalize those that don't believe said hearsay? It seems logical to assume it was considered necessary to provide evidence for the initial seed in order to convince it, yet if this is necessary to convince it as it is also necessary to convince large segments of the future population, evidence would logically be more effective than hearsay.

From omnipotence, fairness and the provision of evidence to believers, it seems to follow that similar degrees of evidence would be provided to all. We'd have to invoke the unsatisfactory works in mysterious ways to explain why most must rely on far less evidendence to convince them, and covince it must because if you're not convinced how can you take it for the truth? NOTE: arguments for the existence of some abstract God do not necessarily constitute arguments in favor of some particular religious myth.

You have exactly the same evidence I have. Is it unfair? Most people believe or disbelieve based on emotions and other reasons beside evidence. Why is there something rather than nothing? Your belief demands proof. Where is it? Godel proves you need faith to make sense out of anything.

we're not talking about you and me, we're talking about ALL believers. Assuming say christianity is true, DO YOU HAVE THE SAME AMOUNT OF EVIDENCE AS SAY THE APOSTLES who directly witnessed and touched and experienced the miracles(assuming it is true)? How about all those blind, dead, ill, possessed, etc who are said to have directly been affected by cures? doubters who are said to have touched wounds of the resurrected? etc?

If we go into catholicism, there is all the miracles attributed to saints affecting some individuals throughout history. IMHO, a direct witness or even a person directly affected by some miracle like cure has more evidence than you at least as it pertains to a particular religion.

Again general arguments about abstract theist gods do not necessarily imply the gods described in any particular religion are true.

But we are talking about us. No two people have the same experience. Because I didn’t know John Kennedy personally does that mean it is unfair that I believe in him and you don’t. Nor, does it mean I arrived at my belief without evidence and you did! I have faith and you don’t?

We have been discussing evidence for God. In Philosophy and Theology, that is called General revelation. You, like I have accepted by faith, our answers. Soon we will turn to special revelation, why Christianity.

Nice, Kennedy is not omnipotent nor does he require belief in him for salvation, so it doesn't really matter whether we have the same degree of evidence. Even if we all wanted to experience kennedy directly, kennedy being mortal born at a certain time and dying at another could not be omnipresent and grace all humans past and present with his presence.

It's going to be interesting to see the justifications for special revelation. As it seems quite clear, evident and cut that given omnipotence omnipresence and omnibenevolence making some eyewitnesses and even direct subjects of miracles and giving other mere hearsay is indeed unfair and contradicts the properties assigned to god.

[johnross47]

"As it seems quite clear, evident and cut that given omnipotence omnipresence and omnibenevolence making some eyewitnesses and even direct subjects of miracles and giving other mere hearsay is indeed unfair and contradicts the properties assigned to god"

It's unfair on a cosmic scale since this same supposedly maximally just and fair etc. creature is planning to burn the unbelievers for all eternity in hell. So much for "most merciful".

[shadowhawk]

Duchykins: Yeah you can copy paste the structures of fallacies you clearly have little understanding of, like ad hominem, but that doesn't change the fact that what I said is gemerally true and it wasn't structured to be an argument. It's just the way it is. The general scientific consensus leans toward B theory because it has a bit of supportive evidence in quantum mechanics. A theory has no supportive evidence and can be dismissed through logic alone.

If you want to side with B theory because you think it supports your idea of god, that's cool. As long as you understand that it removes the rug from underneath the KCA, so I don't expect you to be trying to bring it up again. A and B theory are mutually exclusive. So make up your mind.

A and B theories of time are built on two different kinds of evidence. We all experience time on the A theory. I have given evidence for that. http://www.longecity...480#entry642188
http://www.longecity...510#entry643037
I know you won’t look at past quotes, so this is for persons interested in the actual argument. A. Theory is how you and I experience the world and so it is reality. Try to live in a B theory cause and effect world. I don’t believe in A. Theory just because of God. It fits everything we experience. So I won’t give up talking about the KCA and will not base my view of time on the B theory alone. You can expect me to talk both about A theory and the KCA because it is reality. God for example, exists in B theory time as well as A. Theory. Creator and creation.

I don’t care if a thousand scientists setting on the head of a pen say something is true, it is the nature of science to always question. You are omitting the genetic fallacy. Science is almost always wrong, to its credit. This is not a bandwagon. Make up your mind. Are you open or closed?

Genetic Fallacy
1. The origin of a claim or thing is presented.
2. The claim is true(or false) or the thing is supported (or discredited).
http://www.nizkor.or...ic-fallacy.html

Post Hoc
1. A occurs before B.
2. Therefore A is the cause of B.
http://www.nizkor.or...s/post-hoc.html

Quantum Physics Fallacy
Description: Using quantum physics in an attempt to support your claim, when in no way is your claim related to quantum physics. One can also use the weirdness of the principles of quantum physics to cast doubt on the well-established laws of the macro world.

Perhaps the greatest mind in quantum physics, Richard Feynman, once said, “I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics,” and he is probably right. People recognize that this is perhaps the most bizarre, paradoxical, and incomprehensible area of study, that is also a respectable science. So, if you can manage to connect the truth of your argument to quantum physics, it would be unlikely that there would be many people who know enough about quantum physics to assert that your connection is invalid, thus your argument gains credibility out of ignorance.
The mysterious nature of quantum physics is a breeding ground for superstition, religious claims, “proof” of God, universal consciousness, and many other unfalsifiable claims. It is also the grounds for claims a B. Theory of time is the only correct one.
Logical Form:
Quantum physics supports the idea that X is Y.
Therefore, X is Y.
(although quantum physics supports no such thing)

[shadowhawk]

Castiel: Nice, Kennedy is not omnipotent nor does he require belief in him for salvation, so it doesn't really matter whether we have the same degree of evidence. Even if we all wanted to experience kennedy directly, kennedy being mortal born at a certain time and dying at another could not be omnipresent and grace all humans past and present with his presence.

It's going to be interesting to see the justifications for special revelation. As it seems quite clear, evident and cut that given omnipotence omnipresence and omnibenevolence making some eyewitnesses and even direct subjects of miracles and giving other mere hearsay is indeed unfair and contradicts the properties assigned to god.

You entirely missed the point. We are discussing general revelation now and whether there is evidence for God. http://www.longecity...510#entry642862

We are going to discuss why I believe Christianity is the best choice but this discussion bears on the Hiddenness of God as a subject important to evidence. What could be the reason for god not to put a sign on the moon with His picture, saying “I am God,” so that you could believe.

[Duchykins]

Duchykins: Yeah you can copy paste the structures of fallacies you clearly have little understanding of, like ad hominem, but that doesn't change the fact that what I said is gemerally true and it wasn't structured to be an argument. It's just the way it is. The general scientific consensus leans toward B theory because it has a bit of supportive evidence in quantum mechanics. A theory has no supportive evidence and can be dismissed through logic alone.

If you want to side with B theory because you think it supports your idea of god, that's cool. As long as you understand that it removes the rug from underneath the KCA, so I don't expect you to be trying to bring it up again. A and B theory are mutually exclusive. So make up your mind.

A and B theories of time are built on two different kinds of evidence. We all experience time on the A theory. I have given evidence for that. http://www.longecity...480#entry642188
http://www.longecity...510#entry643037
I know you won’t look at past quotes, so this is for persons interested in the actual argument. A. Theory is how you and I experience the world and so it is reality. Try to live in a B theory cause and effect world. I don’t believe in A. Theory just because of God. It fits everything we experience. So I won’t give up talking about the KCA and will not base my view of time on the B theory alone. You can expect me to talk both about A theory and the KCA because it is reality. God for example, exists in B theory time as well as A. Theory. Creator and creation.

I don’t care if a thousand scientists setting on the head of a pen say something is true, it is the nature of science to always question. You are omitting the genetic fallacy. Science is almost always wrong, to its credit. This is not a bandwagon. Make up your mind. Are you open or closed?

Genetic Fallacy
1. The origin of a claim or thing is presented.
2. The claim is true(or false) or the thing is supported (or discredited).
http://www.nizkor.or...ic-fallacy.html

Post Hoc
1. A occurs before B.
2. Therefore A is the cause of B.
http://www.nizkor.or...s/post-hoc.html

Quantum Physics Fallacy
Description: Using quantum physics in an attempt to support your claim, when in no way is your claim related to quantum physics. One can also use the weirdness of the principles of quantum physics to cast doubt on the well-established laws of the macro world.

Perhaps the greatest mind in quantum physics, Richard Feynman, once said, “I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics,” and he is probably right. People recognize that this is perhaps the most bizarre, paradoxical, and incomprehensible area of study, that is also a respectable science. So, if you can manage to connect the truth of your argument to quantum physics, it would be unlikely that there would be many people who know enough about quantum physics to assert that your connection is invalid, thus your argument gains credibility out of ignorance.
The mysterious nature of quantum physics is a breeding ground for superstition, religious claims, “proof” of God, universal consciousness, and many other unfalsifiable claims. It is also the grounds for claims a B. Theory of time is the only correct one.
Logical Form:
Quantum physics supports the idea that X is Y.
Therefore, X is Y.
(although quantum physics supports no such thing)

Why do you insist on straw manning and being ridiculous?


A-theory of time is "true" in the sense that it is INTUITIVELY SATISFYING. Intuitive reasoning has us using A-theory of time. In the same sense, it is "true" that the earth is FLAT, UNMOVING, and that the SUN GOES AROUND THE EARTH. Intuitive reasoning tells us these three things about Earth. Even though we now know all three to be false, all three still feel true to us from our position. Why do you think heliocentrism was so strongly scorned and resisted at first? It wasn't just because the Bible depicts the earth as a flat disc covered by a dome-shaped firmament and is orbited by the sun. Those things are in the Bible because that is what it looks like to us living on the planet's surface. But it is not *actually* true.

Don't give me dubious nonsense that A-theory of time is *actually* true because that is how we are most comfortable perceiving it on one hand - and in the other hand, shitting on physics because there is a smidgen of evidence supporting B-theory of time, and then saying B-theory of time is also *actually* true because that is how you think your god perceives it...


Know what that smells like?

Relativity.

Do you now wish to change your position on the veracity or usefulness of physics and actually give a cogent, linear argument now? Or are you happy to be a hypocritical, self-defeating, incoherent troll?

Figure it out.

Edited by Duchykins, 14 February 2014 - 01:05 AM.

[Castiel]

Castiel: Nice, Kennedy is not omnipotent nor does he require belief in him for salvation, so it doesn't really matter whether we have the same degree of evidence. Even if we all wanted to experience kennedy directly, kennedy being mortal born at a certain time and dying at another could not be omnipresent and grace all humans past and present with his presence.

It's going to be interesting to see the justifications for special revelation. As it seems quite clear, evident and cut that given omnipotence omnipresence and omnibenevolence making some eyewitnesses and even direct subjects of miracles and giving other mere hearsay is indeed unfair and contradicts the properties assigned to god.

You entirely missed the point. We are discussing general revelation now and whether there is evidence for God. http://www.longecity...510#entry642862

We are going to discuss why I believe Christianity is the best choice but this discussion bears on the Hiddenness of God as a subject important to evidence. What could be the reason for god not to put a sign on the moon with His picture, saying “I am God,” so that you could believe.

It's so amazing that you have to divide revelation into special revelation and general revelation. Whatever argument for defending such division, is most certainly bound to be weak. Calling forth special revelation in some holybook through hearsay basically amounts to negative evidence, evidence against the described God.

And what could be the reason for giving such signs("put a sign on the moon with His picture, saying “I am God,” so that you could believe.") to some so they could believe, depending on who you ask: splitting the moon, moving the sun rapidly across the sky, resurrecting the dead, touching post-resurrection wounds? or how about levitating saints, miraculous cures, etc? WHY JUST SOME? Oh they just don't have the great blessing of having blind faith through lack of direct exposure to miracles(the so called blessing of faith brought by defenders of special revelation, on the one hand those with direct exposure are blessed to get direct experience of the holy on the other hand the rest are also blessed to not get that experience and enjoy constant doubt but hold strong to their faith... such paradoxical and illogical state the product of a fictional god or an insane if not mischievious and malevolent god.).

Edited by Castiel, 14 February 2014 - 01:58 AM.

[IronLife]

Castiel: Nice, Kennedy is not omnipotent nor does he require belief in him for salvation, so it doesn't really matter whether we have the same degree of evidence. Even if we all wanted to experience kennedy directly, kennedy being mortal born at a certain time and dying at another could not be omnipresent and grace all humans past and present with his presence.

It's going to be interesting to see the justifications for special revelation. As it seems quite clear, evident and cut that given omnipotence omnipresence and omnibenevolence making some eyewitnesses and even direct subjects of miracles and giving other mere hearsay is indeed unfair and contradicts the properties assigned to god.

You entirely missed the point. We are discussing general revelation now and whether there is evidence for God. http://www.longecity...510#entry642862

We are going to discuss why I believe Christianity is the best choice but this discussion bears on the Hiddenness of God as a subject important to evidence. What could be the reason for god not to put a sign on the moon with His picture, saying “I am God,” so that you could believe.

It's so amazing that you have to divide revelation into special revelation and general revelation. Whatever argument for defending such division, is most certainly bound to be weak. Calling forth special revelation in some holybook through hearsay basically amounts to negative evidence, evidence against the described God.

And what could be the reason for giving such signs("put a sign on the moon with His picture, saying “I am God,” so that you could believe.") to some so they could believe, depending on who you ask: splitting the moon, moving the sun rapidly across the sky, resurrecting the dead, touching post-resurrection wounds? or how about levitating saints, miraculous cures, etc? WHY JUST SOME? Oh they just don't have the great blessing of having blind faith through lack of direct exposure to miracles(the so called blessing of faith brought by defenders of special revelation, on the one hand those with direct exposure are blessed to get direct experience of the holy on the other hand the rest are also blessed to not get that experience and enjoy constant doubt but hold strong to their faith... such paradoxical and illogical state the product of a fictional god or an insane if not mischievious and malevolent god.).

This is just an emotional argument, even fideistic. It presumes, without basis, what an omnipotent, omniscient, omninonomonom God would do based solely on the subjectivity of a 21st century person. This is not philosophical reasoning at all. God's communication through prophets, if we grant that this is true for the sake of the argument, does not contradict any of the philosophical qualities attributed to God.

[johnross47]

Revelation is not worth much effort. It is not so long ago, (90's?) that the catholic church admitted that purgatory was made up. Yet just a few years before it was regarded as unassailable revelation. They also admitted that a lot of the saints and their miracles were made up. They only have to go a little further to emerge into the light and admit that, one way or another, it is all made up. There is probably some historical truth in the existence of some people in the bible, but their pre-scientific accounts of events are uselessly unreliable. Many revelations and visions would now be recognised as schizophrenia, or as epileptic in origin. Some of the others are probably just made up, for convenience or attention seeking, or political expediency or whatever. None of it is edifying.

[platypus]

I think it is also evident that the Judeo-Christian God is not passing any meaningful information to their followers. Mind you that the Jewish, different types of Christians, Jehova's witnesses and Mormon's all "commucinate" with the same God in prayer, but God does not bother to tell anybody that their doctrine is incorrect...

[IronLife]

Revelation is not worth much effort. It is not so long ago, (90's?) that the catholic church admitted that purgatory was made up. Yet just a few years before it was regarded as unassailable revelation. They also admitted that a lot of the saints and their miracles were made up. They only have to go a little further to emerge into the light and admit that, one way or another, it is all made up. There is probably some historical truth in the existence of some people in the bible, but their pre-scientific accounts of events are uselessly unreliable. Many revelations and visions would now be recognised as schizophrenia, or as epileptic in origin. Some of the others are probably just made up, for convenience or attention seeking, or political expediency or whatever. None of it is edifying.

With all due respect, you don't know what you're talking about. The Catholic Church never said any such thing about purgatory.

What you're thinking of is limbo, and the Church never dogmatically taught limbo: check the conciliar teachings for yourself. Rather, it was medieval speculation that became widespread. Pope Benedict simply clarified that this is not official Catholic doctrine nor has it ever been.

With regard to the biblical creation accounts, they are not meant to be scientific. Any Old Testament scholar would tell you that. The images relate to concrete things from their day such as the Serpent = fertility cults, for example. Many prominent Jewish and Christian theologians from very early in the tradition took these stories figuratively, see Origen and Augustine, to name a few.

Edited by IronLife, 14 February 2014 - 01:40 PM.

[johnross47]

Revelation is not worth much effort. It is not so long ago, (90's?) that the catholic church admitted that purgatory was made up. Yet just a few years before it was regarded as unassailable revelation. They also admitted that a lot of the saints and their miracles were made up. They only have to go a little further to emerge into the light and admit that, one way or another, it is all made up. There is probably some historical truth in the existence of some people in the bible, but their pre-scientific accounts of events are uselessly unreliable. Many revelations and visions would now be recognised as schizophrenia, or as epileptic in origin. Some of the others are probably just made up, for convenience or attention seeking, or political expediency or whatever. None of it is edifying.

With all due respect, you don't know what you're talking about. The Catholic Church never said any such thing about purgatory.

What you're thinking of is limbo, and the Church never dogmatically taught limbo: check the conciliar teachings for yourself. Rather, it was medieval speculation that became widespread. Pope Benedict simply clarified that this is not official Catholic doctrine nor has it ever been.

With regard to the biblical creation accounts, they are not meant to be scientific. Any Old Testament scholar would tell you that. The images relate to concrete things from their day such as the Serpent = fertility cults, for example. Many prominent Jewish and Christian theologians from very early in the tradition took these stories figuratively, see Origen and Augustine, to name a few.

As soon as I saw your remark I remembered I'd got the wrong made-up place. I did actually know it, but to use G W Bush's wonderful word, I misremembered it. A great deal of medieval mumbo jumbo became semi-officially incorporated. It's mostly made up. I do realise that, outside the nutters on the fundamentalist literalist wing, nobody takes these stories as anything more than metaphorical. As for their interpretation; there are probably lots of theories but none have any bearing on the existence/nonexistence of any gods. As many creation stories have been told as gods have been proposed, but none of them, either, has much bearing on anything except cultural history. On the other hand, the huge amount of cross fertilisation between all these gods and their stories, most of which have been discarded, does suggest that the surviving god stories probably belong on the same pile.

[IronLife]

Revelation is not worth much effort. It is not so long ago, (90's?) that the catholic church admitted that purgatory was made up. Yet just a few years before it was regarded as unassailable revelation. They also admitted that a lot of the saints and their miracles were made up. They only have to go a little further to emerge into the light and admit that, one way or another, it is all made up. There is probably some historical truth in the existence of some people in the bible, but their pre-scientific accounts of events are uselessly unreliable. Many revelations and visions would now be recognised as schizophrenia, or as epileptic in origin. Some of the others are probably just made up, for convenience or attention seeking, or political expediency or whatever. None of it is edifying.

With all due respect, you don't know what you're talking about. The Catholic Church never said any such thing about purgatory.

What you're thinking of is limbo, and the Church never dogmatically taught limbo: check the conciliar teachings for yourself. Rather, it was medieval speculation that became widespread. Pope Benedict simply clarified that this is not official Catholic doctrine nor has it ever been.

With regard to the biblical creation accounts, they are not meant to be scientific. Any Old Testament scholar would tell you that. The images relate to concrete things from their day such as the Serpent = fertility cults, for example. Many prominent Jewish and Christian theologians from very early in the tradition took these stories figuratively, see Origen and Augustine, to name a few.

As soon as I saw your remark I remembered I'd got the wrong made-up place. I did actually know it, but to use G W Bush's wonderful word, I misremembered it. A great deal of medieval mumbo jumbo became semi-officially incorporated. It's mostly made up.

It was a philosophical construct postulated by medieval scholastics. It didn't gain "semi-official" status, it was merely popular among piety since it sought to address the issue concerning the fate of unbaptized children.

I do realise that, outside the nutters on the fundamentalist literalist wing, nobody takes these stories as anything more than metaphorical. As for their interpretation; there are probably lots of theories but none have any bearing on the existence/nonexistence of any gods. As many creation stories have been told as gods have been proposed, but none of them, either, has much bearing on anything except cultural history. On the other hand, the huge amount of cross fertilisation between all these gods and their stories, most of which have been discarded, does suggest that the surviving god stories probably belong on the same pile.

The cross-fertilization involved borrowing and adapting of cultural images more than anything else. What is significant In the Genesis creation story is the idea that the sun and the moon are objects not gods, which was a radically foreign, indeed blasphemous, belief at the time for all of the neighboring religions.

[johnross47]

Revelation is not worth much effort. It is not so long ago, (90's?) that the catholic church admitted that purgatory was made up. Yet just a few years before it was regarded as unassailable revelation. They also admitted that a lot of the saints and their miracles were made up. They only have to go a little further to emerge into the light and admit that, one way or another, it is all made up. There is probably some historical truth in the existence of some people in the bible, but their pre-scientific accounts of events are uselessly unreliable. Many revelations and visions would now be recognised as schizophrenia, or as epileptic in origin. Some of the others are probably just made up, for convenience or attention seeking, or political expediency or whatever. None of it is edifying.

With all due respect, you don't know what you're talking about. The Catholic Church never said any such thing about purgatory.

What you're thinking of is limbo, and the Church never dogmatically taught limbo: check the conciliar teachings for yourself. Rather, it was medieval speculation that became widespread. Pope Benedict simply clarified that this is not official Catholic doctrine nor has it ever been.

With regard to the biblical creation accounts, they are not meant to be scientific. Any Old Testament scholar would tell you that. The images relate to concrete things from their day such as the Serpent = fertility cults, for example. Many prominent Jewish and Christian theologians from very early in the tradition took these stories figuratively, see Origen and Augustine, to name a few.

As soon as I saw your remark I remembered I'd got the wrong made-up place. I did actually know it, but to use G W Bush's wonderful word, I misremembered it. A great deal of medieval mumbo jumbo became semi-officially incorporated. It's mostly made up.

It was a philosophical construct postulated by medieval scholastics. It didn't gain "semi-official" status, it was merely popular among piety since it sought to address the issue concerning the fate of unbaptized children.

I do realise that, outside the nutters on the fundamentalist literalist wing, nobody takes these stories as anything more than metaphorical. As for their interpretation; there are probably lots of theories but none have any bearing on the existence/nonexistence of any gods. As many creation stories have been told as gods have been proposed, but none of them, either, has much bearing on anything except cultural history. On the other hand, the huge amount of cross fertilisation between all these gods and their stories, most of which have been discarded, does suggest that the surviving god stories probably belong on the same pile.

The cross-fertilization involved borrowing and adapting of cultural images more than anything else. What is significant In the Genesis creation story is the idea that the sun and the moon are objects not gods, which was a radically foreign, indeed blasphemous, belief at the time for all of the neighboring religions.

This is not my subject but I suspect, on general cultural grounds, that that is a partial reading. Whatever, it has no bearing on reality, which is an area free of evidence for gods; all the minutiae of religious nitpicking are of no more than historical interest compared to questions about the real world.

Edited by johnross47, 14 February 2014 - 09:28 PM.

[shadowhawk]

Duchykins: Why do you insist on straw manning and being ridiculous?
ShadowHawk SH: I didn’t mention the straw man fallacy.

Duchykins: A-theory of time is "true" in the sense that it is INTUITIVELY SATISFYING. Intuitive reasoning has us using A-theory of time. In the same sense, it is "true" that the earth is FLAT, UNMOVING, and that the SUN GOES AROUND THE EARTH. Intuitive reasoning tells us these three things about Earth. Even though we now know all three to be false, all three still feel true to us from our position. Why do you think heliocentrism was so strongly scorned and resisted at first? It wasn't just because the Bible depicts the earth as a flat disc covered by a dome-shaped firmament and is orbited by the sun. Those things are in the Bible because that is what it looks like to us living on the planet's surface. But it is not *actually* true.

SH: It is actually true. Try to live your life on a B Theory. It won’t work. It is not just INTUITIVELY SATISFYING, it is our real PERSPECTIVE on reality. The sun does come up in the morning, and that is why we describe it that way. W|hy we see it that way, is another perspective and that is why I accepted both A and B theories of time. So does Craig, by the way.
I have said this before. http://www.longecity...510#entry643037

Quantum Physics Fallacy
Description: Using quantum physics in an attempt to support your claim, when in no way is your claim related to quantum physics. One can also use the weirdness of the principles of quantum physics to cast doubt on the well-established laws of the macro world.

Perhaps the greatest mind in quantum physics, Richard Feynman, once said, “I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics,” and he is probably right. People recognize that this is perhaps the most bizarre, paradoxical, and incomprehensible area of study, that is also a respectable science. So, if you can manage to connect the truth of your argument to quantum physics, it would be unlikely that there would be many people who know enough about quantum physics to assert that your connection is invalid, thus your argument gains credibility out of ignorance.
The mysterious nature of quantum physics is a breeding ground for superstition, religious claims, “proof” of God, universal consciousness, and many other unfalsifiable claims. It is also the grounds for claims a B. Theory of time is the only correct one.
Logical Form:
Quantum physics supports the idea that X is Y.
Therefore, X is Y.
(although quantum physics supports no such thing)

Duchykins: Don't give me dubious nonsense that A-theory of time is *actually* true because that is how we are most comfortable perceiving it on one hand - and in the other hand, shitting on physics because there is a smidgen of evidence supporting B-theory of time, and then saying B-theory of time is also *actually* true because that is how you think your god perceives it...

SH: Why not, and I did no such thing to physics. I am not saying B. Theory is true. Time is part of creation, an aspect of evolution. A. Theory fits that. I noted God is timeless and may have something like aspects of B. Theory going on. Maybe. But you know for sure. A true believer. Both things can’t be true at the same time. Don’t you think your thinking is tensed?

Know what that smells like?
SH: What?

Duchykins: Do you now wish to change your position on the veracity or usefulness of physics and actually give a cogent, linear argument now? Or are you happy to be a hypocritical, self-defeating, incoherent troll?

SH: I see no reason to. I said nothing negative about physics. Is this ad hominem? This must be the “meat’” you promised.
http://www.longecity...480#entry642126
http://www.longecity...480#entry642188

[Duchykins]

Duchykins: Why do you insist on straw manning and being ridiculous?
ShadowHawk SH: I didn’t mention the straw man fallacy.

Duchykins: A-theory of time is "true" in the sense that it is INTUITIVELY SATISFYING. Intuitive reasoning has us using A-theory of time. In the same sense, it is "true" that the earth is FLAT, UNMOVING, and that the SUN GOES AROUND THE EARTH. Intuitive reasoning tells us these three things about Earth. Even though we now know all three to be false, all three still feel true to us from our position. Why do you think heliocentrism was so strongly scorned and resisted at first? It wasn't just because the Bible depicts the earth as a flat disc covered by a dome-shaped firmament and is orbited by the sun. Those things are in the Bible because that is what it looks like to us living on the planet's surface. But it is not *actually* true.

SH: It is actually true. Try to live your life on a B Theory. It won’t work. It is not just INTUITIVELY SATISFYING, it is our real PERSPECTIVE on reality. The sun does come up in the morning, and that is why we describe it that way. W|hy we see it that way, is another perspective and that is why I accepted both A and B theories of time. So does Craig, by the way.
I have said this before. http://www.longecity...510#entry643037

Quantum Physics Fallacy
Description: Using quantum physics in an attempt to support your claim, when in no way is your claim related to quantum physics. One can also use the weirdness of the principles of quantum physics to cast doubt on the well-established laws of the macro world.

Perhaps the greatest mind in quantum physics, Richard Feynman, once said, “I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics,” and he is probably right. People recognize that this is perhaps the most bizarre, paradoxical, and incomprehensible area of study, that is also a respectable science. So, if you can manage to connect the truth of your argument to quantum physics, it would be unlikely that there would be many people who know enough about quantum physics to assert that your connection is invalid, thus your argument gains credibility out of ignorance.
The mysterious nature of quantum physics is a breeding ground for superstition, religious claims, “proof” of God, universal consciousness, and many other unfalsifiable claims. It is also the grounds for claims a B. Theory of time is the only correct one.
Logical Form:
Quantum physics supports the idea that X is Y.
Therefore, X is Y.
(although quantum physics supports no such thing)

Duchykins: Don't give me dubious nonsense that A-theory of time is *actually* true because that is how we are most comfortable perceiving it on one hand - and in the other hand, shitting on physics because there is a smidgen of evidence supporting B-theory of time, and then saying B-theory of time is also *actually* true because that is how you think your god perceives it...

SH: Why not, and I did no such thing to physics. I am not saying B. Theory is true. Time is part of creation, an aspect of evolution. A. Theory fits that. I noted God is timeless and may have something like aspects of B. Theory going on. Maybe. But you know for sure. A true believer. Both things can’t be true at the same time. Don’t you think your thinking is tensed?

Know what that smells like?
SH: What?

Duchykins: Do you now wish to change your position on the veracity or usefulness of physics and actually give a cogent, linear argument now? Or are you happy to be a hypocritical, self-defeating, incoherent troll?

SH: I see no reason to. I said nothing negative about physics. Is this ad hominem? This must be the “meat’” you promised.
http://www.longecity...480#entry642126
http://www.longecity...480#entry642188

So your argument is "it's true because I say so, and because this other guy says so" ... ?

Hahahah!

I didn't promise any "meat". Apparently you have reading comprehension problems.

[shadowhawk]

Duchykins: Why do you insist on straw manning and being ridiculous?
ShadowHawk SH: I didn’t mention the straw man fallacy.

Duchykins: A-theory of time is "true" in the sense that it is INTUITIVELY SATISFYING. Intuitive reasoning has us using A-theory of time. In the same sense, it is "true" that the earth is FLAT, UNMOVING, and that the SUN GOES AROUND THE EARTH. Intuitive reasoning tells us these three things about Earth. Even though we now know all three to be false, all three still feel true to us from our position. Why do you think heliocentrism was so strongly scorned and resisted at first? It wasn't just because the Bible depicts the earth as a flat disc covered by a dome-shaped firmament and is orbited by the sun. Those things are in the Bible because that is what it looks like to us living on the planet's surface. But it is not *actually* true.

SH: It is actually true. Try to live your life on a B Theory. It won’t work. It is not just INTUITIVELY SATISFYING, it is our real PERSPECTIVE on reality. The sun does come up in the morning, and that is why we describe it that way. W|hy we see it that way, is another perspective and that is why I accepted both A and B theories of time. So does Craig, by the way.
I have said this before. http://www.longecity...510#entry643037

Quantum Physics Fallacy
Description: Using quantum physics in an attempt to support your claim, when in no way is your claim related to quantum physics. One can also use the weirdness of the principles of quantum physics to cast doubt on the well-established laws of the macro world.

Perhaps the greatest mind in quantum physics, Richard Feynman, once said, “I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics,” and he is probably right. People recognize that this is perhaps the most bizarre, paradoxical, and incomprehensible area of study, that is also a respectable science. So, if you can manage to connect the truth of your argument to quantum physics, it would be unlikely that there would be many people who know enough about quantum physics to assert that your connection is invalid, thus your argument gains credibility out of ignorance.
The mysterious nature of quantum physics is a breeding ground for superstition, religious claims, “proof” of God, universal consciousness, and many other unfalsifiable claims. It is also the grounds for claims a B. Theory of time is the only correct one.
Logical Form:
Quantum physics supports the idea that X is Y.
Therefore, X is Y.
(although quantum physics supports no such thing)

Duchykins: Don't give me dubious nonsense that A-theory of time is *actually* true because that is how we are most comfortable perceiving it on one hand - and in the other hand, shitting on physics because there is a smidgen of evidence supporting B-theory of time, and then saying B-theory of time is also *actually* true because that is how you think your god perceives it...

SH: Why not, and I did no such thing to physics. I am not saying B. Theory is true. Time is part of creation, an aspect of evolution. A. Theory fits that. I noted God is timeless and may have something like aspects of B. Theory going on. Maybe. But you know for sure. A true believer. Both things can’t be true at the same time. Don’t you think your thinking is tensed?

Know what that smells like?
SH: What?

Duchykins: Do you now wish to change your position on the veracity or usefulness of physics and actually give a cogent, linear argument now? Or are you happy to be a hypocritical, self-defeating, incoherent troll?

SH: I see no reason to. I said nothing negative about physics. Is this ad hominem? This must be the “meat’” you promised.
http://www.longecity...480#entry642126
http://www.longecity...480#entry642188

So your argument is "it's true because I say so, and because this other guy says so" ... ?

Hahahah!

I didn't promise any "meat". Apparently you have reading comprehension problems.

T|his is not my argument and never was. Proof is in my above quote. Let's go on because we have said enough and it is starting to get off topic. You didn't promise any "Meat?" Well it is not worth looking up, but you haven't given any so I will leave it at that..

Have a good yesterday. (B. theory) Your thinking and writing is so tensed and sounds like A..

Edited by shadowhawk, 15 February 2014 - 12:19 AM.

[shadowhawk]

Hiddenness of God




http://www.amazon.co...h/dp/0913836311

When I go on retreat at my favorite place on earth, http://www.contemplation.com/
I love to look out at the horizon where the sky meets the ocean. It has been called by some mystics the crack in reality. Of course we know the world does not end at the vanishing point but we can no longer see. For years this has always been a deeply moving experience of God for me.

God must be greater than what I see. I feel Him, am struck with awe, but I can’t see him. Even if I could, would I know what I am seeing? The August full moon rise (I know the moon doesn’t rise) is very beautiful from the perspective of this bench. For a few seconds it is behind the trees on the distant mountains. http://www.contemplation.com/ God !

Despite all the arguments and evidence for the existence of God, at root, though it is a pleasurable experience, (talking about God), it is the mystery that really touches me. It is kind of like being in love with your wife, you can describe everything about Her but then there is the embrace. Oh great mystery. You don’t know her at all. https://www.facebook...hermitagebigsur

The Hiddenness of God, it is like being in a pitch dark room, but knowing someone is in there with you. Presence, in everything, that deep knowing, He is there. You can’t get that by evidence alone. The fullness is beyond sight. If you think you can know God simply by gathering facts, real evidence is in the embrace of faith. It is in the heart.

[Duchykins]

Duchykins: Why do you insist on straw manning and being ridiculous?
ShadowHawk SH: I didn’t mention the straw man fallacy.

Duchykins: A-theory of time is "true" in the sense that it is INTUITIVELY SATISFYING. Intuitive reasoning has us using A-theory of time. In the same sense, it is "true" that the earth is FLAT, UNMOVING, and that the SUN GOES AROUND THE EARTH. Intuitive reasoning tells us these three things about Earth. Even though we now know all three to be false, all three still feel true to us from our position. Why do you think heliocentrism was so strongly scorned and resisted at first? It wasn't just because the Bible depicts the earth as a flat disc covered by a dome-shaped firmament and is orbited by the sun. Those things are in the Bible because that is what it looks like to us living on the planet's surface. But it is not *actually* true.

SH: It is actually true. Try to live your life on a B Theory. It won’t work. It is not just INTUITIVELY SATISFYING, it is our real PERSPECTIVE on reality. The sun does come up in the morning, and that is why we describe it that way. W|hy we see it that way, is another perspective and that is why I accepted both A and B theories of time. So does Craig, by the way.
I have said this before. http://www.longecity...510#entry643037

Quantum Physics Fallacy
Description: Using quantum physics in an attempt to support your claim, when in no way is your claim related to quantum physics. One can also use the weirdness of the principles of quantum physics to cast doubt on the well-established laws of the macro world.

Perhaps the greatest mind in quantum physics, Richard Feynman, once said, “I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics,” and he is probably right. People recognize that this is perhaps the most bizarre, paradoxical, and incomprehensible area of study, that is also a respectable science. So, if you can manage to connect the truth of your argument to quantum physics, it would be unlikely that there would be many people who know enough about quantum physics to assert that your connection is invalid, thus your argument gains credibility out of ignorance.
The mysterious nature of quantum physics is a breeding ground for superstition, religious claims, “proof” of God, universal consciousness, and many other unfalsifiable claims. It is also the grounds for claims a B. Theory of time is the only correct one.
Logical Form:
Quantum physics supports the idea that X is Y.
Therefore, X is Y.
(although quantum physics supports no such thing)

Duchykins: Don't give me dubious nonsense that A-theory of time is *actually* true because that is how we are most comfortable perceiving it on one hand - and in the other hand, shitting on physics because there is a smidgen of evidence supporting B-theory of time, and then saying B-theory of time is also *actually* true because that is how you think your god perceives it...

SH: Why not, and I did no such thing to physics. I am not saying B. Theory is true. Time is part of creation, an aspect of evolution. A. Theory fits that. I noted God is timeless and may have something like aspects of B. Theory going on. Maybe. But you know for sure. A true believer. Both things can’t be true at the same time. Don’t you think your thinking is tensed?

Know what that smells like?
SH: What?

Duchykins: Do you now wish to change your position on the veracity or usefulness of physics and actually give a cogent, linear argument now? Or are you happy to be a hypocritical, self-defeating, incoherent troll?

SH: I see no reason to. I said nothing negative about physics. Is this ad hominem? This must be the “meat’” you promised.
http://www.longecity...480#entry642126
http://www.longecity...480#entry642188

So your argument is "it's true because I say so, and because this other guy says so" ... ?

Hahahah!

I didn't promise any "meat". Apparently you have reading comprehension problems.

T|his is not my argument and never was. Proof is in my above quote. Let's go on because we have said enough and it is starting to get off topic. You didn't promise any "Meat?" Well it is not worth looking up, but you haven't given any so I will leave it at that..

Have a good yesterday. (B. theory) Your thinking and writing is so tensed and sounds like A..

"It's true because I say so and because this other guy says so."

That is the basic structure of your argument. It isn't even logically valid, forget sound. Even a circular argument would be logically valid.

Reductio ad absurdum is a well established valid method of argumentation. Read a book.

Edited by Duchykins, 15 February 2014 - 02:31 AM.