OrthodoxChristianity.net
September 30, 2014, 06:04:46 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 3 All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: The Logical Fallacies of Religion.  (Read 7537 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
TheJackel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Materialist
Posts: 240


« on: February 16, 2011, 01:38:41 AM »

These are some things I would like to touch on in regards to religions that use logical fallacies to which they need not require. I often wonder why theists cling to such logical fallacies, or use them as arguments. So lets address a few of these:

The Ultimate Paradox to Creationism, Omnipotence is the following:

Information: The Material Physical Cause Of Causation

And here is why Omniscience is a logical fallacy:

OMNISCIENCE:
Quote
    Omniscience (pronounced /ɒmˈnɪsiəns/)[1] (or omniscient point-of-view in writing) is the capacity to know everything infinitely, or at least everything that can be known about a character including thoughts, feelings, life and the universe, etc.

Before we can address this, the following article and post must first be addressed and understood:

*Article: Information: The Material Physical Cause of Causation This has to do with understanding information theory.

After reviewing the above, we can see that from a conscious perspective of a living Entity's perspective, Omniscience is actually a self-collapsing Logical Fallacy for many reasons to which even includes the perspective of pure Solipsism.

In regards to the Definition of Omniscience, we need to pay special attention to the words "infinite" and "everything", and then go define "Solipsism" while holding ourselves to Information theory discussed earlier.

Quoting Myself here:

   
Quote
So lets look at Omniscience from a Designers Perspective (as if you are the Omniscient GOD about to design and create something into existence. Such as a human being):

    1) I'm Omniscient

    2) I have an Idea of something I want to build, construct, or make existent

    3) I know infinitely everything about this thing, person, or place infinitely before, and infinitely after I have constructed it or even thought of it (key note: This is a logical fallacy because you can't create things from a position of Omniscience).. But we will roll with it here for sake of argument.

    A) I would know in my design everything it will infinitely ever do.

    B) I would know everything about my design's essence or being to the point of actually, and literally being that of my design (object, entity, thing, or place) in every infinitely literal way! (and we must pay close attention to the term infinite)

    C) I would know all the above infinitely in the past, present, and future.

    D) This thing I designed would only be able to do what it's was designed to do, and what I already infinitely know it will do, even to the point of it actually being me, and me doing all those things myself in every infinite way imaginable, and literally.

    E) Even if we wanted to create the logical fallacy that this thing would not be me under Omniscience, The thing itself still could never freely stray from it's predetermined fate in every infinite detail to which includes every feeling, thought, idea, emotion, action, reaction, ect. all the way down to the quantum level and substance from which it was made. That includes every infinite piece of data in regards to it's relation to every atom it's comprised of vs every other atom in existence. And infinitely so!

    So, this is why Omniscience is a logical fallacy. And technically, something that is Omniscient can't actually do anything at all because it infinitely would know, experienced, or seen everything infinitely, and infinitely in the past, present, and future. Thus something to which is conscious can not design or create anything to which it does not already know IF it is Omniscient by definition! Existence would at that point just be an infinite Picture in an infinite picture frame.. And that's not even the worst part of it, the following is even worse than the above:

    Omniscience would translate to GOD being existence itself in the best case possible, or everything that is existent in every infinite way. This is in accordance with:

    *Article: Information: The Material Physical Cause of Causation

Or:

* IF Your GOD is -->IN<--- existence.. it's irrelevant, bound to the rules it can not write, create, or circumvent. The very same rules we must follow, and follow to even be conscious.

* If Your GOD -->IS<-- existence.. Everything is GOD and thus also nullifies the argument. This also brings in the belief system of Solipsism.

* IF your GOD is ---> NOT IN <--- existence then it's irrelevant.
Logged
Ortho_cat
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: AOCA-DWMA
Posts: 5,392



« Reply #1 on: February 16, 2011, 01:40:52 AM »

Welcome to the forum! Probably not the appropriate section for this thread though...
Logged
TheJackel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Materialist
Posts: 240


« Reply #2 on: February 16, 2011, 01:45:46 AM »

NON-MATERIAL:

Nothing:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nothing
Quote
Nothing is a concept that describes the absence of anything. Colloquially, the concept is often used to indicate the lack of anything relevant or significant, or to describe a particularly unimportant thing, event, or object. It is contrasted with something and everything. Nothingness is used more specifically as the state of nonexistence of everything.

Dictionary.com:

- 4 dictionary results
noth·ing
   /ˈnʌθɪŋ/ Show Spelled[nuhth-ing] Show IPA
–noun
1.
not anything; naught:
2.
no part, share, or trace (usually fol. by of ): God has no evidence to prove it's existence.
3.
something that is nonexistent.
4.
nonexistence
5.
something or someone of no importance or significance:

---

So let's explore the prefix "non":

Dictionary.com:
Quote
a prefix meaning “not,” freely used as an English formative, usually with a simple negative force as implying mere negation or absence of something

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/non-
non-
prefix
1. indicating negation / nonexistent

non (nō̂n)
adverb, interjection
1. no

Now put those into context of "Non-material". Now anyone can feel free to explain how nothing can be an existing object, person, place or thing in literal context.

Logged
TheJackel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Materialist
Posts: 240


« Reply #3 on: February 16, 2011, 01:47:56 AM »

Welcome to the forum! Probably not the appropriate section for this thread though...

Thanks Smiley.. I think the sections are a bit vague, and the appropriate section doesn't seem listed on the forum home page :/ But the moderator can feel free to move it, and I will gladly adjust where I post discussions like these Smiley Cheers!
« Last Edit: February 16, 2011, 01:50:37 AM by TheJackel » Logged
Cognomen
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Phyletism Rules, OK
Posts: 1,968


Ungrateful Biped


« Reply #4 on: February 16, 2011, 01:59:21 AM »

The Logical Fallacies of TheJackel:

* IF Your GOD is -->IN<--- existence.. it's irrelevant, bound to the rules it can not write, create, or circumvent. The very same rules we must follow, and follow to even be conscious.

* If Your GOD -->IS<-- existence.. Everything is GOD and thus also nullifies the argument. This also brings in the belief system of Solipsism.

* IF your GOD is ---> NOT IN <--- existence then it's irrelevant.

You simply created an "existence" and a set of rules that you believe God must adhere to.  Logic is not defined as "stuff you think."

To answer the question asked in the thread title: I adhere to the logical fallacies of religion because my IQ hovers around the mid-80s, and I just don't know any better.  If someone could only come up with a short, easy to understand formula, perhaps in bullet format, I would be freed from my illogical beliefs.
Logged

North American Eastern Orthodox Parish Council Delegate for the Canonization of Saints Twin Towers and Pentagon, as well as the Propagation of the Doctrine of the Assumption of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370 (NAEOPCDCSTTPPDAMAFM®).
TheJackel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Materialist
Posts: 240


« Reply #5 on: February 16, 2011, 02:01:34 AM »

Boundless:

One without boundaries or limits is another logical fallacy. Hence, what boundaries separate me from being your GOD? What boundaries make us all individuals or make us possible to exist? What things are all conscious entities bound to require in order to exist? Do you need a place to exist? Do not need information to know of your own existence? Do you not need capacity to exist?.. So to say something is boundless is to suggest something is everything and magically exists outside of everything. You can also reference Omniscience above. These also defy Omnipotence.


Creationism:

Can your supposed Godly entity design and create all the following listed things into existence when itself is slave to require them? When you can show us all how to design and create the following --> into existence <--, you might win a Nobel Prize. Can it know how to create knowledge? Can a conscious mind do anything at all without the existence of information, or base of inquiry?

* existence = impossible (slave to require)
* intelligence = impossible (Slave to require)
* information = impossible (slave to require)
* knowledge = impossible (slave to require)
* Material Physicality = impossible (slave to require) Pretty hard to exist as being made of "nothing". lol
* Experience, and experiences = impossible (slave to be an observer of reality in which it's slave to require in order to have such things) (see also information)
* Ground state of complexity or point zero = impossible (can't really have power, intelligence, Omniscience, divinity, consciousness, or self-awareness at this level)
* Empty Space = impossible ( no space = no capacity, and without capacity there is no place to exist in, or contain anything at all)
* Capacity = impossible ( see space)
* self-awareness = impossible (slave to require, and see information)
* self-identity = impossible (slave to require, and see information)
* consciousness = impossible (salve to requires, and see information)
* a place to exist in = impossible (slave to require, see capacity and space)
* mind containment = impossible (each mind is contained, must have a place to exist) (see capacity, and space, and information)
* light/dark = impossible (it's either ever only dark, light, or a mixture of both)
* infinity = equals impossible to create
* Wisdom = impsossible (slave to require, see information)
* time = impossible (the process to create time would in itself require time)
* The basic 5 senses (hearing, smell, touch, see, taste) = (must require if it is to see anything itself or even reality to which it could observe)
* observation = (slave to require, see information also)
* calculation = (pretty hard to create anything without the ability to process information) (see also information)
* manipulation (slave to require in order to create anything at all)
* thought = impossible (slave to require, see information also)
* perception = impossible (slave to require in order to be conscious)
* reality = impossible (slave to require in order to exist, observe, process, or do anything)
* complexity = impossible (slave to require, see capacity, information)
* cause and effect = impossible (slave to require, see information, capacity, mental processing, reality, complexity, perception, observation, ect)
* Morality
* Cognitive dynamics = impossible ( slave to require)
* Inertia
* Progress / progression = impossible (slave to require to even have a mental process, create, or do anything.. see also time)
* Mental Processing = impossible (slave to require) (see also information)
* Memory = impossible (slave to require in order to know or have a base of knowledge) (see information, capacity, space, self-identity, self-awareness, consciousness ect)
* Oscillation
* intent
* Ability = impossible (slave to require in order to do anything, see also information, mental processing, cognitive behavior, cause and effect)
* Positive, Negative, neutral = impossible (slave to require in order to do anything at all)
* Imagination
* Design
* Point of View
* Life
* mobility
* power
* divinity
* math = imossible (slave to require being 1 above zero, or more complex than zero) (see all the above)

(applying infinite regress here)
If you can reply to this post without matter, information, energy, material-physicality, or knowledge (base of inquiry).. I will completely concede to the existence of a GOD and Creationism! Smiley

All those things on that list are the same things we all require to exist. Minds can not create reality when they are apart of it, and made from it as emerging properties, or are slave to require it. There is no conscious entity that can solve infinite regress, or be the cause of causation.



Logged
TheJackel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Materialist
Posts: 240


« Reply #6 on: February 16, 2011, 02:09:10 AM »


Quote
You simply created an "existence" and a set of rules that you believe God must adhere to.  Logic is not defined as "stuff you think."

That is a self-contradiction. In fact you don't bother to address them, you simply choose to ignore them as if that is even an argument. However, I can very well state a specific set of rules:

there are 3 basic rules that govern complex, information, and energy.

Positive
Negative
Neutral


These 3 rules (laws) underpin all things of complex, and all things existent. It's the fundamental characteristics of a chaotic system to which can give rise to emergent properties such as consciousness, or the chair you sit on while reading this post. Why?

There can only ever be a positive, negative, or neutral; action, reaction, response, process, phenomenon, Natural selection, adaptation, ability, emotion, feeling, dynamic, function, feedback, ethic, relevance, information, state, position, point of view, thought, idea, choice, decision, system, or emerging property.


Your argument would be equal to trying to state that your GOD wouldn't require to know anything to know anything.. Sorry, but logically information theory can not be circumvented because you say:
Quote
  Logic is not defined as "stuff you think."

Especially when that is entirely a self-contradiction.. Logic is not possible without information either ;l

Logged
Alveus Lacuna
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,891



« Reply #7 on: February 16, 2011, 02:09:39 AM »

To answer the question asked in the thread title: I adhere to the logical fallacies of religion because my IQ hovers around the mid-80s, and I just don't know any better.  If someone could only come up with a short, easy to understand formula, perhaps in bullet format, I would be freed from my illogical beliefs.

This applies to me as well. I really think this guy might be able to help us out of the cave.
Logged
TheJackel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Materialist
Posts: 240


« Reply #8 on: February 16, 2011, 02:18:47 AM »

Quote
To answer the question asked in the thread title: I adhere to the logical fallacies of religion because my IQ hovers around the mid-80s, and I just don't know any better.  If someone could only come up with a short, easy to understand formula, perhaps in bullet format, I would be freed from my illogical beliefs.

Not very hard to understand the basics of complexity, or that nothing can not be a person, place, or thing in literal context. It's also not hard to understand information theory. Any excuses is just that of purely being lazy, or for the intent to not address the fallacies stated above.

This is why it's interesting to hear theists state:
Quote
"something can't come from nothing"

Well, you can't create from nothing, or the position of nothing either. And it's a good thing that in science nothing never existed, otherwise we might have had an issue here Wink.


Do note though, this is only addressing logical fallacies. This does not mean that some entity more complex and more intelligent than man couldn't exist. This includes an entity that could have triggered a big bang since that is just a matter of physics. For all we know, we could have done so ourselves without even knowing it while playing with particle collisions. However, it's up to you if you want to call something like that "GOD" and worship it as such. GOD's are purely concepts of opinion and titles of pure opinion anyways.. I am in favor of plausibility as long as it doesn't include logical fallacies. :/

« Last Edit: February 16, 2011, 02:45:27 AM by TheJackel » Logged
Red A.
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 188


« Reply #9 on: February 16, 2011, 02:43:46 AM »



This is why I it's interesting to hear theists state:

"something can't come from nothing"

Lotsa words. It woulda been easier to just produce something from nothing and then you really would have had us!
« Last Edit: February 16, 2011, 02:44:14 AM by Red A. » Logged
TheJackel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Materialist
Posts: 240


« Reply #10 on: February 16, 2011, 02:47:18 AM »



This is why I it's interesting to hear theists state:

"something can't come from nothing"

Lotsa words. It woulda been easier to just produce something from nothing and then you really would have had us!

Good thing that things don't come from nothing. "Nothing isn't nothing anymore in science". Might want to check and brush up on quantum physics.

I can give you some starters here:

Quote
Spatial capacity is to which is the capacity to exist, and have a place to exist in. This can not ever have zero literal capacity, exist as zero capacity, or exist in the form of a negative capacity. Hence, literal 0 dimensional objects, places, or things do not exist because they can not have the capacity to do so. And that is especially true for someone that would try and imply -1 dimensional capacity or something to be a-spatial..

And what is Spatial Capacity made of?

ENERGY! (Yep, that everyday stuff that even heats our homes). It's also why we know that spatial capacity is infinite.

And that also means no literal negative or zero energy can exist. This is also stated in the laws of Thermodynamics because literal zero temperature, or thermal property is impossible for this very same reason. This is from ground state to every day objects like the chair you sit in here on Planet Earth.. So we do know quite a bit, we just don't know the entire sum total there is to know between zero (ground state) and above. Chaotic systems are nearly impossible to predict, or fully understand at every level that might emerge.

So you can feel free to reference:

1) Scale:
http://primaxstudio.com/stuff/scale_of_universe/

2) You, me, and everything else on the orders of magnitude on the energy scale..as also demonstrated above under (scale):

http://talklikeaphysicist.com/2009/energy-scale-of-over-100-orders-of-magnitude/

Gravity is considered a negative energy (not literally, just opposite force in the opposite direction/attraction)This is also where expansion is considered positive energy. The total net energy is zero (not literal). This is where Zero point energy, as energy, is in a state of Equilibrium vs actually being nothing or literally zero. This is why we refer to zero-point energy or ground state. So at rest there is zero-point energy. This is where zero also = 1 or (0,1) in qbits

Zero point energy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-point_energy

Ground State:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground_state

Vacuum Energy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_energy

Zero Energy Calculator:
http://www.curtismenning.com/ZeroEnergyCalc.htm

The Four stages of Matter:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=88tK5c0wgH4
--
Quantum Electrodynamics:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8R4Tz_vKEE
--
Chaos Theory and Emerging order from the coupling of positive and negative feedback:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1HVRniR3GrQ
--
Butterfly effect: Secret life of Chaos:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R6NnCOs20GQ

--

So yes, there are gaps in our "Knowledge" of the universe, but they are actually only Gray Area Gaps in terms of physics, complexity of chaotic systems, and how exactly to infinite detail did the Big Bang happen from Quantum fluctuations of energy.

This can best be understood by the following example:

We know we are human and what we are made of, and where we relatively reside. However, we do not infinitely know everything there is to know about ourselves, or our species.. In fact we know more about the Chicken than we do about ourselves on a scientific level. So are we human? Do we need to know the entire 100% of all the infinite information we could ever gain about ourselves to understand what we are? Do we need to know everything in order to make correct assumptions of what we are based on the available and already known knowledge of what we are?

Same principle applies to Earth.. We don't need to infinitely know everything about Earth to know it's a habitable planet in a solar system labeled "sol" to which resides in the Milky-way Galaxy amongst the billions of other Galaxies...And this is why the GOD of the Gaps argument is erroneous..

You can also note these references:

Our own Universe has been measured to be flat with less than a 2 percent margin of error.

http://wmap.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_age.html

For clarity, like a disc floating in space similar to our own Galaxy but at a much grander scale. Thus the net Energy = zero (no lower than ground state).

Some Good source videos:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqb1lSdqRZY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kV33t8U6w28&feature=relmfu

Other resources:

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2848

http://icecube.wisc.edu/~halzen/notes/week1-3.pdf

http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/lectures/early_univ.html

http://casswww.ucsd.edu/public/tutorial/Cosmology.html



And this is why this makes far more sense than a Nothing GOD made of nothing to which magically creates something from nothing:

Quote
Existence is seen as a phenomenal reality of physical self-oscillating, self-organizing energy that makes you, me, the stars, matter, anything with complexity, and anything with mass possible. "A universal set of all sets". Without information, it seems there can be no consciousness, no awareness, no existence, no objects, no things, no places, or entities. Information is thus conceptually a material physical substance, or energy in different states, structures, and complexities! It's also seen under this argument as the true cause of causation of everything that exists, or can possibly ever exist. Thus all things including consciousness are emerging properties of Information, or from information.





Do you know where the idea of non-materialism came from? It was the idea that surrounded the mystery of energy to which was not seen in solid form. As in Heat, or cold. The original concept was not intended to describe nothing. However, theists have gone down that road because logical fallacies is all they have left to hold on to in order to keep the invisible sky god alive even though they don't realize they are worshiping the SUN, or that their religion has polytheistic roots  simply because Judaism does.

« Last Edit: February 16, 2011, 03:06:06 AM by TheJackel » Logged
88Devin12
Moderated
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,922



« Reply #11 on: February 16, 2011, 03:07:36 AM »

Interesting, but I don't think religion is supposed to have a foundation based upon logical conclusions. Religion is all about faith, not logic.
Then again, even with science these days, it's almost based upon faith as much as logic, especially since many conclusions that were thought to be solid and absolutely provable/repeatable are turning out not to be so concrete.

I don't think I've heard theist's say "something can't come from nothing"... We simply say that something DID come from nothing, it's just that we say God created everything out of nothing.
Maybe what your point is, is that atheists argue that "something came out of nothing" in the sense that there isn't a divine being that created everything.
Even then, I would say most true atheists wouldn't be opposed to the idea of a God, if he were proved to exist. They recognize that there is a possibility of the existence of a deity or some overarching being/causality. But there is no proof for it, and so they refuse to conclude that it's an absolute fact and they choose not to believe in it because of the lack of apparent concrete scientific proof.

The problem is, even "scientific proof" isn't what it was once thought to be. As mentioned before, there are many things in the scientific world that are being rocked because they are finding that there are some "laws" that are bit more shaky than once thought, and aren't quite as repeatable. The scientific method, while it might seem to lead to a solid conclusion, may, years later, lead to the opposite conclusion. Or even throughout the years, may lead to similar conclusions, but it may not be rock solid.

Check out Frederica Matthews-Green's recent podcast entitled "Scientists are Human", where she reviews/reads a recent article by an atheist who is showing the "logical fallacies" in the arguments/conclusions of other atheists. (and scientists more specifically)
http://ancientfaith.com/podcasts/frederica/scientists_are_human
Logged
TheJackel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Materialist
Posts: 240


« Reply #12 on: February 16, 2011, 03:35:03 AM »

Quote
Interesting, but I don't think religion is supposed to have a foundation based upon logical conclusions. Religion is all about faith, not logic.
Then again, even with science these days, it's almost based upon faith as much as logic, especially since many conclusions that were thought to be solid and absolutely provable/repeatable are turning out not to be so concrete.

I know religion is based on faith.. However, that only gets you so far. Faith in logical fallacies makes faith rather moot that only serves the purpose of worshiping the impossible for the sake of doing so while knowing it's impossible. I don't mind faith in what is plausible, but when you get those things to start becoming Theocritus or trying to inject them into the education system, it becomes a problem. Such as what creationists are trying to do. And science is not based of Faith.. It's based on what evidence and body of facts support any given theory (theory in science is regarded as facts open to further understanding). The scientific method's purpose is to prove itself wrong. It's far more honest than those with blind assumptions that don't even bother to critically think about their assumptions.

Many of science's conclusions will indeed prove to be wrong, but not totally wrong! Hence, further information leads to further understanding. This means that not all of the information or body of facts that supported a theory to which had been proven wrong will magically go down the toilet. Further information may bring more light to those body of facts to which improves a theories accuracy or changes it to be more correct. It's a process, and it's also why you have a computer in front of you right now.

 



Quote

I don't think I've heard theist's say "something can't come from nothing"... We simply say that something DID come from nothing, it's just that we say God created everything out of nothing.

That would be a logical fallacy.

Quote
Maybe what your point is, is that atheists argue that "something came out of nothing" in the sense that there isn't a divine being that created everything.

In correct. And again please read above as to why this is incorrect.


Quote
Even then, I would say most true atheists wouldn't be opposed to the idea of a God, if he were proved to exist. They recognize that there is a possibility of the existence of a deity or some overarching being/causality.

Ahh no!, because GOD's still remain concepts of pure opinion. Atheist view can include that your GOD would have no more relevance than a dust bunny on his desk because neither can create existence, or the rules to existence itself. It's a goal post we call Infinite regress.


Quote
But there is no proof for it, and so they refuse to conclude that it's an absolute fact and they choose not to believe in it because of the lack of apparent concrete scientific proof.

Incorrect. I can believe somethings as plausible so long as they don't include logical fallacies of total and utter implausibility. But yes, proof would be required for any kind of validation or substantiation. Hence, I wouldn't blindly believe in something or take it literally until proven otherwise.


Quote
The problem is, even "scientific proof" isn't what it was once thought to be. As mentioned before, there are many things in the scientific world that are being rocked because they are finding that there are some "laws" that are bit more shaky than once thought, and aren't quite as repeatable.

In correct. there will always be gaps in our knowledge.. But what you seem to be trying to do is create a GOD of the Gaps argument. Well, anything between ground state and above is really not relevant.. And that is where 99.9 percent of your argument sits Wink.

And yes scientists are human.. Not really a relevant argument.. We can still understand the basics of complexity, understand information theory, and understand that nothing can not be a person, place, object, substance, or thing. This stance on human limits of yours will not make fallacies stretch into the realm of plausibility.
« Last Edit: February 16, 2011, 03:37:08 AM by TheJackel » Logged
Shiny
Site Supporter
Moderated
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Groucho Marxist
Jurisdiction: Dahntahn Stoop Haus
Posts: 13,267


Paint It Red


« Reply #13 on: February 16, 2011, 03:37:02 AM »

You can't put God into a test tube.

A thing can exist whether we know it or not. Now to know the existence of God you must first presuppose that you can know God exists. We can also lead our knowing of things without reasons, however we can have reason for the knowledge of God. These reasons may not serve as proof but rather as probabilities. For example I'm in an airplane and at any moment the construction of it could fall apart. However the constructor or the materials used could give me well enough thinking that this is highly unlikely.

I think you misunderstand the "Nothing comes nothing" argument because obviously God is something to put something else into motion. To say "God is nothing" places Him into the realm of the material world which was thus created, therefore God could not exist. God is outside of creation deeming Himself to be uncreated by nature. Same with being called eternal, because God is outside of time therefore God is eternal.

God is a great mystery however this isn't special pleading because we do not exactly know the essence of God to define Him logically. Rather to experience God is to be in action not to be excercising the brain muscle.
Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

– St. Ambrose of Milan
Shiny
Site Supporter
Moderated
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Groucho Marxist
Jurisdiction: Dahntahn Stoop Haus
Posts: 13,267


Paint It Red


« Reply #14 on: February 16, 2011, 03:55:03 AM »

I know religion is based on faith.. However, that only gets you so far. Faith in logical fallacies makes faith rather moot that only serves the purpose of worshiping the impossible for the sake of doing so while knowing it's impossible.
You could not have faith in God or a god based solely on logic. It must come from divine revelation. This is why the Incarnation of the Word supersedes logic and falls into the realm of mystery (in this case for us as divine revelation). Or why the Holy Trinity is a mystery that cannot be explained logically.

I'll give you a story about St. Augustine. He was walking on the beach trying to figure out the Holy Trinity in his mind and it constantly befuddled him. He came across a child who was digging a hole and going to the ocean and putting water in this hole. St. Augustine approached him and said "What is it that you are doing my child?". The boy said "I am going to fit this entire ocean into this small hole" and Augustine retorted "Well surely you can't fit this whole ocean into this hole." Then the boy said "And what makes you think you can contain the Trinitarian infinite God into your mind?". And with that the boy vanished, he was actually a little angel. St. Augustine then praised God for this revelation and ease his intellectual despair.

Quote
I don't mind faith in what is plausible, but when you get those things to start becoming Theocritus or trying to inject them into the education system, it becomes a problem.
Depends on what sort of area of the faith we are trying to follow out logically. However faith isn't something that is to be placed under the microscope persay, it must be tried on by the individual.  

Quote
And science is not based of Faith.. It's based on what evidence and body of facts support any given theory (theory in science is regarded as facts open to further understanding). The scientific method's purpose is to prove itself wrong. It's far more honest than those with blind assumptions that don't even bother to critically think about their assumptions.
The scientific method cannot be used to prove the scientific method (or verify it). Theories are regarded on facts? I can theorize dark matter and dark energy, but that does not make it a fact. For example Einstein postualted the cosmological constant of the universe but admitted it was the greatest blunder of his life.

Quote
Many of science's conclusions will indeed prove to be wrong, but not totally wrong!
The same could be said of materialism then. Your stance for example is all that exists is the material could be proven wrong.

Quote
Ahh no!, because GOD's still remain concepts of pure opinion. Atheist view can include that your GOD would have no more relevance than a dust bunny on his desk because neither can create existence, or the rules to existence itself. It's a goal post we call Infinite regress.

If there was an infinite number of movers in a sort of chain system, nothing could be in motion without a first causal mover. If no motion ever began then nothing can exist, but there is motion and we do exist hence there is a first cause.

Quote
Incorrect. I can believe somethings as plausible so long as they don't include logical fallacies of total and utter implausibility. But yes, proof would be required for any kind of validation or substantiation. Hence, I wouldn't blindly believe in something or take it literally until proven otherwise.
Why should God have to prove Himself to you in ways of something that is tangible?
« Last Edit: February 16, 2011, 03:55:26 AM by Aposphet » Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

– St. Ambrose of Milan
TheJackel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Materialist
Posts: 240


« Reply #15 on: February 16, 2011, 04:06:19 AM »

Quote
You can't put God into a test tube.

It's Existence as just an idea.. Or for it to actually exist beyond just an idea it would have to be IN existence. Hence test tube regardless of how you want to argue.


Quote
A thing can exist whether we know it or not.


Irrelevant..



Quote
Now to know the existence of God you must first presuppose that you can know God exists. We can also lead our knowing of things without reasons, however we can have reason for the knowledge of God. These reasons may not serve as proof but rather as probabilities. For example I'm in an airplane and at any moment the construction of it could fall apart. However the constructor or the materials used could give me well enough thinking that this is highly unlikely.


Your argument is similar to the following: (note the reply is copy pasted from another article on Newsvine..)

Theist stated:
Quote
   There have been any number of studies over the last few years indicating that the human brain is "primed" for religion.

My Reply:

This is a similar logical fallacy as the one posted above to where pleading for ignorance is a tactic commonly used by theists. The human mind of course develops into an organ capable of thoughts, ideas, abstract perception and opinion. The argument above is entirely baseless However.. It's the sly use of the term "Primed" in order to inject a blind faith assertion that it was designed and created. A nice example of a Carl Sagan move there. But hey, the mind is also perfectly suited for the absence, and total rejection there of. It's capable of science, logic, and reason. All this to which entirely collapses the logical fallacy or plea for ignorance argument above. There is a reason why I wrote that article.. Information: The Material Physical Cause of Causation. This pertains to everything discussed, and everything below.. Understanding this is key to understanding the world around us.

---

So back to the subject. I would first suggest that we might want to look into who does those studies above.. Little hint, it's not by the body of the scientific community in the majority of those so called studies. However, it's irrelevant regardless because it is already known that they human brain develops different ways to interpret information into abstract reasoning, or into such things as ideological constructs such as religion, atheism, polytheism, or that red trucks are kewl.

THIS IS HOW THE PERCEPTION GAME WORKS AND HOW IT RELATES TO RELIGION:

  
Quote
I like this specific red truck, and all other red trucks because they are AWESOME!.. What? You don't like my specific red truck, or any red trucks? BLASPHEMOUS!..

Our perception of reality doesn't change reality, it only changes how we perceive things, how we abstractly interpret things we observe, sense, or feel things.. The red truck will remain a red truck as currently observed regardless of either persons perception of the same information. So yes, it's well understood that people may perceive two identical (for sake of argument) experiences with identical information in different abstract points of view.

Example:

People use to view the SUN as GOD!.. Well, technically they had a lot of real world observations to abstractly perceive it to be a GOD. However, further knowledge will reveal it to not be even if those who think it still is, still believe it to be. Regardless of the religious or science view of the SUN, it won't change that it's a Giant Ball of Gas cooking off hydrogen in a fusion reaction to which brings us the light!.

---

So here in lies the scientific problem to the concept of GOD when dealing with the human brain, and why religions beg for you to believe in order for GOD to exist to you..:

An Idea is a collection of thoughts (information) to which are tied to human emotions (further information to be attached to the above)... Yes the idea exists as an idea, but they know the idea has zero relevance beyond that in the real world outside the mind. Thus duplication is thus required for the idea to survive and to have further relevance while knowing there is zero evidence (carl sagan dragon) to support it.

Example:

The Idea of a Dog, or even a random pattern of information is only an informational representation of either an observed thing such as a Dog, or a random collection of words in the human language to which can give rise to abstract ideas ( Such as: One, Eyed, Green, Monster). The problem is with religious people and why they have to argue from a Carl Sagan's Dragon positions is as follows:

The Idea is not the object of the IDEA!.. Hence the mental representation of a DOG or a One Eyed Green Monster is -->NOT THE <-- actual DOG or MONSTER!.. It has no relevance until proven otherwise in accordance to the scientific Method and reality.

Hence, Carl Sagan Dragon Positions and arguments are irrelevant! And all theists are doing without knowing it (or knowing it), is professing the existence of an idea through emotional attachment to the idea to which includes their own abstract interpretation and perception of the idea behind the GOD concept. This is to which they are taught without any attempt at providing proof, or evidence to authenticate and validate such faith based ideas.

These are the basic fundamentals of information theory, and how tools for brainwashing and programming people are developed. This is fundamentally how Faith comes about. It's the engineering of devotion and faith by attaching emotion to concepts, ideologies, symbols, Icons, Idols, thoughts, and Ideas... it's about manipulation of thought and emotion.

And this is how I was taught to advertise when I was doing advertising for Churches across the midwest. Hence, you can read this link here:

Religious brainwashing: how it's done.

---

You can also reference such books as:

* Brainwashing: The science of Thought Control
* Mind Control 101: How to influence the thoughts and actions of others without them knowing or caring
* Combating Cult Mind Control
* Brainwash: The Secret History of Mind Control

Or even articles like:


http://shrink4men.wordpress.com/2010/11/02/the-mechanics-of-parental-alienation-programming-and-brainwashing/

So before anyone replies here, you must understand information theory. I have done advertising for Churches for many years.. And the books I referenced don't just help people address religion as they do in regards to more general aspects of life. Such as politics, propaganda, news, and product sales ect.

Quote
I think you misunderstand the "Nothing comes nothing" argument because obviously God is something to put something else into motion.


GOD would require more complexity and cause, and thus can not answer that argument. And energy self-oscillates, and can interfere with itself. This is why you have the Quantum foam.. the 3 basic laws of a chaotic system to which are the fundamental properties of energy itself. Positive, negative, and neutral. Energy doesn't require anything other than itself to put things into motion. And that is because energy is an ever flowing system. It's the substance of existence itself to where information and energy are regarded as two sides of the same coin from which complex arises from. Hence, you only need Energy! So that brings you right back to:

Ground state



Quote
To say "God is nothing" places Him into the realm of the material world which was thus created, therefore God could not exist. God is outside of creation deeming Himself to be uncreated by nature. Same with being called eternal, because God is outside of time therefore God is eternal.


Circular argument that makes no intelligible sense. No, that states that GOD as it now is at best only an Idea. No different than a One Eyed Green Monster. However, Trying to rationalize nothing as a something isn't going to make nothing something Wink.

« Last Edit: February 16, 2011, 04:38:17 AM by TheJackel » Logged
TheJackel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Materialist
Posts: 240


« Reply #16 on: February 16, 2011, 04:22:13 AM »

TRUTH VS FALLACY:

So the first thing we must do is establish the differences between truth, faith, and belief.. You can say this is Truth VS Fallacy, and that we all know truth only comes to be realized when it has faced rigorously harsh doses of self scrutiny. So what is the differences between truth, belief, and faith? Well, how about we find out by taking a closer look at each of these terms so we can establish a foundation for determining how they apply to the world we live in.

* Truth: substantiated unarguable information that is validated without possible argument against, or to where evidence is sufficient to give it substantial value.
* Faith: The hoping of what you think is divine truth is actually true when there is no means of validation to give it substantiation.. It's a means to keep one believing irregardless if it's proven false, irrelevant, as a logical fallacy, or simply impossible.

* Belief :

A: Religion - believing in what you perceive to be true irregardless of validity, and in this case it is highly dependent on Faith for support. Otherwise a collapse of belief would likely occur (me as an example of a former Christian), or the denial of reality will likely occur in order for a belief to be held.

B: Science, logic, and reason - Believing what what is true by the evidence to which supports it.

Example Truth:

    Absolute substantiated fact = Existence can be verified without argument to exist simply because non-existence can not be a literal person, place, or thing of existence. Non-existence can not be a literal noun!

Example Fallacy:


    A faith based belief = believing a GOD created existence without having to explain how one can preexist existence in order to create it.

What has all the weight in relevance to reality?
* The one with all the evidence to support it.

Which one has intellectual integrity?
* The one with all the evidence to support it
* The one willing to self-scrutinize it's beliefs in favor of reaching for a definable and tangible truth based on the Scientific Method, logic, and reason to where the evidence dictates the value of the belief system in order to avoid being dictated or clung to logical fallacies.
* The one that doesn't assume it's truth, or truth without evidence.


Thus my article to which had been posted here (Information: The Material Physical Cause of Causation) by someone, and then ignored or chastised without even taking the time to understand what it states shows that many people are simply not able to honestly debate, or engage in the subject. Information theory is very well grounded and is proven to not to be circumventable. The very mere use of communication will validate it. Neither you or a supposed GOD could reply, or exist without it. Thus complex derives from basis of it's substance and not that which is slave to require it. No entity can solve infinite regress, exist outside of containment (capacity), have zero value, have zero substance (see value), oh have not parts or composition. These are fundamentally attributes to describe what non-existence means. It's total and utter irrelevance by definition.

Energy =/= information = substance = value = purpose = existence.
« Last Edit: February 16, 2011, 04:30:13 AM by TheJackel » Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,192


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #17 on: February 16, 2011, 01:45:36 PM »

Trying to Convert, I am going to give you some constructive criticism. You are a terribel philosopher. You really know nothing about. I suggest that before you enter these debates, you engage serious literature on the matter. I highly suggest the works of professor Edward Feser.
Now your arguments.

* IF Your GOD is -->IN<--- existence.. it's irrelevant, bound to the rules it can not write, create, or circumvent. The very same rules we must follow, and follow to even be conscious.
No. If our God exists, He is the First Cause, as argued in another thread. Therefore, He is standard of being. The rule is Him. All other beings are measured by His absolute existence. The rules He created to govern material reality are do not bind Him. He binds them.
The God that you are arguing against is not the Infinite God of Christianity, not even the god of philosophy. You are arguing against the old pagan concept of a god that is merely part of the system, not one that transcends it.

* If Your GOD -->IS<-- existence.. Everything is GOD and thus also nullifies the argument. This also brings in the belief system of Solipsism.
Not at all. When we apply the term "existence" to God and to our finite changing universe, the term is only applied analogically. When we apply it to God we mean, absolute, infinite, ulimited, self-existence. When we apply it to our limited universe, we mean, finite, changing and derived existence. Becuase of God's ulimitedness, He would not be identified with the universe because that would place a limit on Him, by making Him the limited universe. Further, not being the limited universe does not limit Him because He is not in competition with the exitence of the universe. He is utterly beyond it.

* IF your GOD is ---> NOT IN <--- existence then it's irrelevant.
God is absolute existence itself, beyond our finite limited "sort-of" existence.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
theo philosopher
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Self-Ruled Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 315



« Reply #18 on: February 16, 2011, 01:54:34 PM »

Quote from: Papist
Trying to Convert, I am going to give you some constructive criticism. You are a terribel philosopher. You really know nothing about. I suggest that before you enter these debates, you engage serious literature on the matter.

This about summarizes the reply I was going to make.
Logged

“Wherefore, then, death approaches, gulps down the bait of the body, and is pierced by the hook of the divinity. Then, having tasted of the sinless and life-giving body, it is destroyed and gives up all those whom it had swallowed down of old." - St. John of Damascus
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,817



« Reply #19 on: February 16, 2011, 01:55:13 PM »

Quoting Myself here:
And chasing your tail.

   
* IF Your GOD is -->IN<--- existence.. it's irrelevant, bound to the rules it can not write, create, or circumvent. The very same rules we must follow, and follow to even be conscious.

* If Your GOD -->IS<-- existence.. Everything is GOD and thus also nullifies the argument. This also brings in the belief system of Solipsism.

* IF your GOD is ---> NOT IN <--- existence then it's irrelevant.
Our God is beyond existence, so all your sophism is irrelevant.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,817



« Reply #20 on: February 16, 2011, 01:56:11 PM »

Quote from: Papist
Trying to Convert, I am going to give you some constructive criticism. You are a terribel philosopher. You really know nothing about. I suggest that before you enter these debates, you engage serious literature on the matter.

This about summarizes the reply I was going to make.
Is The Jackel Tryingtoconvert?
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Shiny
Site Supporter
Moderated
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Groucho Marxist
Jurisdiction: Dahntahn Stoop Haus
Posts: 13,267


Paint It Red


« Reply #21 on: February 16, 2011, 01:58:45 PM »

He's not TtC.
Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

– St. Ambrose of Milan
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,192


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #22 on: February 16, 2011, 02:00:20 PM »

Quote from: Papist
Trying to Convert, I am going to give you some constructive criticism. You are a terribel philosopher. You really know nothing about. I suggest that before you enter these debates, you engage serious literature on the matter.

This about summarizes the reply I was going to make.
Is The Jackel Tryingtoconvert?
It turns out that he is not, BUT he demonstrates the same kind of thinking.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Shiny
Site Supporter
Moderated
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Groucho Marxist
Jurisdiction: Dahntahn Stoop Haus
Posts: 13,267


Paint It Red


« Reply #23 on: February 16, 2011, 02:01:43 PM »

I love how it's irrelevant that a thing can exist whether we know it or not.
Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

– St. Ambrose of Milan
TheJackel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Materialist
Posts: 240


« Reply #24 on: February 16, 2011, 03:05:32 PM »

Quote
It turns out that he is not, BUT he demonstrates the same kind of thinking.

Is this typical Dogma applied to anyone that engages in an opposing position to your religious views? I don't think I'm all too worried about whether or not you convert to anything. It's more interesting to me that you would resort to these kind of arguments to deflect and ignore from having to address my posts. You have the free choice to engage in this discussion, or not to engage. If you choose to engage, please refrain from off-topic deflections, or dogma and stay on topic while providing some sort of intellectual integrity or honesty in the debate :/

How about this, and I will make it simple.. With a yes or no answer, can you think, feel, apply, or do anything without information, energy, capacity, material-physicality, or complexity? Careful of your reply here, some critical thinking required in regards to information theory Wink

My answer: No

Minds can only observe and process information, and require to be a complex system of information themselves. Minds can not create that which they themselves require to exist, and thus can not solve infinite regress because they are products of existence and not the creators of.. That list I gave you, is what we all equally require to exist. Thus there is no such thing as an un-caused state of consciousness because it is slave to require that to which it can not create:

1) A place to exist in - It must have containment
2) Capacity to exist - Dimensional value - spatial value
3) Informational value
4) Substance - Nothing can not be a person, place, or thing.
5) complexity greater than ground state
6) Time or to be temporally bound in order to even have the ability to process information, or think.

So how complex is your GOD vs man? The more complexity and power you try and give something, the more cause it will require to exist. Same reason why 5 can't create 0-4 and itself so itself can exist. Complexity doesn't begin from the top people, it begins and starts from the lowest level possible to where infinite regress is solved by an impossible juncture where regression can go no further. And that deals with informational Capacity in accordance to information theory. Without capacity, there can be no informational value, complexity, structure, or even GODS to which you would like to worship.

« Last Edit: February 16, 2011, 03:19:17 PM by TheJackel » Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,192


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #25 on: February 16, 2011, 03:22:03 PM »

Quote
It turns out that he is not, BUT he demonstrates the same kind of thinking.

Is this typical Dogma applied to anyone that engages in an opposing position to your religious views? I don't think I'm all too worried about whether or not you convert to anything. It's more interesting to me that you would resort to these kind of arguments to deflect and ignore from having to address my posts. You have the free choice to engage in this discussion, or not to engage. If you choose to engage, please refrain from off-topic deflections, or dogma and stay on topic while providing some sort of intellectual integrity or honesty in the debate :/
Actually, I have yet to see you address the substance of the true theistic arguments. Rather, most of your posts contain assertions without any true logical demonstration. I have engaged your posts, and you have, as of yet, not responded to any of my arguments. When you do so, you might then have a leg to stand on. Until then, I await your resonse.

How about this, and I will make it simple.. With a yes or no answer, can you think, feel, apply, or do anything without information, energy, capacity, material-physicality, or complexity?

Careful of your reply here, some critical thinking required Wink
Criticial thinking: Something you have not yet demonstrated. (BTW, Critical thinking is impossible in your materialistic framework, as demonstrated by Hume).
Now, you have once again stacked the deck in your favor, by requiring me to answer the question on your terms. The question is more complex than you allow for, and thus there is no way to provide a simple answer, without providing you with the opportunity to engage in sophistry.
Can I think, feel, apply, or do anthing without information, capacity, physical activity, or complexity? Of course not. Because, at least one part of my composite nature is material: requiring energy, physicality, complexity.
BUT, since God is none of these things (as demonstrated by my argument in a previous post, an argument that you have yet to address), he would not require them.
Again, your argument falls entirely flat. Your thoughts are stillborn.
« Last Edit: February 16, 2011, 03:23:49 PM by Papist » Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
TheJackel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Materialist
Posts: 240


« Reply #26 on: February 16, 2011, 03:31:12 PM »

Quote
I love how it's irrelevant that a thing can exist whether we know it or not.

It is because we are not discussing things that can be said to actually be plausible.. This thread is addressing logical fallacies of religion, information theory, and have zero relevance to whether or not something (that must be possible to exist) exists or not. It's quite simple, Logical fallacies don't actually exist beyond the conceptual idea any more than a negative spatial capacity could. You could thus feel free to properly address the subject.

If you can post a reply here without material-physicality, capacity, information, or energy (all to which are the same coin), I will gladly accept the notion of a GOD. So can you convey a message, think, process, observe, do, act, reply, without the above? Well, the answer is obviously not! Welcome to cause and effect in regards to causation Wink  Welcome to the rules of complexity, and the rules of existence to which you are slave to require and can not write. This is why theists tend to try and place attributes of non-existence, and logical fallacies to their GOD concept. They have a complexity problem that nullifies the entire premise of their argument "/
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,192


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #27 on: February 16, 2011, 03:41:45 PM »


Minds can only observe and process information, and require to be a complex system of information themselves.
You didn't finish that sentence. you missed: "If they are fininte, limited and changing"

Minds can not create that which they themselves require to exist, and thus can not solve infinite regress because they are products of existence and not the creators of.. That list I gave you, is what we all equally require to exist.[/quote]
Minds cannot create what they need to exist, but God needs nothing for his existence, because he is unlimited, absolute, infinte existence itself. He is the First Cause, and requires no cause, I proved earlier.


 Thus there is no such thing as an un-caused state of consciousness because it is slave to require that to which it can not create:
If it is the first cause, and unlimited, infinite, and transcends the finite universe, then you argument has no meaning. Again, you are arguing against the pagan gods, who are nothing more than super-heros like the x-men. When will you address the arguments for the monotheistic God?

1) A place to exist in - It must have containment
only if you are talking about limited being.
2) Capacity to exist - Dimensional value - spatial value
only if you are talking about limited being

3) Informational value
I am not quite sure what you mean here. If you mean it must be empirically verifiable, then you first have to get me to buy into your materialist/empiricist epistemology, which I do not. In fact, this entire conversation demonstrates the impossibility of your epistemology. Further, a infinite, unlimited, being would not possibly be empircally verifiable for limited, finite beings. God would have to be absolutely beyond us. So again,
Not for unlimited being. Smiley
BTW, there are ways to know that things exists outside of empiricism. Smiley

4) Substance - Nothing can not be a person, place, or thing.
Not to sound repetitive, but "not for unlimited being."
Look buddy, we apply these terms "person" and "substance" to God by analogy. But if he is unlimited, he is certainly beyond human understanding of such terms and categories.

5) complexity greater than ground state
I already provided you with proof that God is simple today. You have not addressed this. As for this ground state issue, God transcends that. So it's applicable. Further, his simplicity is not non-existence, but absolute existence, and you have yet to address that. You keep attacking a straw man.

6) Time or to be temporally bound in order to even have the ability to process information, or think.
Not for unlimited being. Because God is simple and unlimited, he understands all in one act of knowing, that is Him. You keep applying limiting principles but our God is infinite and unlimited.

So how complex is your GOD vs man? The more complexity and power you try and give something, the more cause it will require to exist. Same reason why 5 can't create 0-4 and itself so itself can exist. Complexity doesn't begin from the top people, it begins and starts from the lowest level possible to where infinite regress is solved by an impossible juncture where regression can go no further. And that deals with informational Capacity in accordance to information theory. Without capacity, there can be no informational value, complexity, structure, or even GODS to which you would like to worship.


Again, not for unlimited being. You really need to address what monotheists actually believe in, and not your pet strawman.
« Last Edit: February 16, 2011, 03:42:43 PM by Papist » Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,192


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #28 on: February 16, 2011, 03:49:21 PM »

Ok buddy, here ya go:
1. Everything that begins to exist must have a sufficient cause for it's existence.
2. Right now there are many things causing me to exist (including the parts that make me up).
3. The chain of things causing me to exist is either infinite or finite.
4. If the chain is infinite, then there is no sufficient reason for the existence of the chain, as each being depends on another for existence, but then none actually has being. Therefore, nothing would exist. But clearly things exist.
5. Therefore the chain is finite and has a First Cause.
6. The First Cause is either composed of parts or is simple.
7. If the First Cause is composed of parts, then it depends on the composition of its parts for its existence.
8. But then this would mean that the First Cause is caused, which is a contradiction.
9. Therefore the First Cause must be simple.
« Last Edit: February 16, 2011, 03:49:40 PM by Papist » Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
TheJackel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Materialist
Posts: 240


« Reply #29 on: February 16, 2011, 03:53:13 PM »

Quote
Actually, I have yet to see you address the substance of the true theistic arguments. Rather, most of your posts contain assertions without any true logical demonstration. I have engaged your posts, and you have, as of yet, not responded to any of my arguments. When you do so, you might then have a leg to stand on. Until then, I await your resonse.

Actually I have.. Already addressed in regards to information theory. Theistic arguments are irrelevant and are also slave to require it. This makes me wonder how many of you actually understand this debate. :/

Quote
Criticial thinking: Something you have not yet demonstrated.

Actually your very reply demonstrates my point exactly.

Quote

 (BTW, Critical thinking is impossible in your materialistic framework, as demonstrated by Hume).

Incorrect. And your reply again is a self-contradiction.


Quote
Now, you have once again stacked the deck in your favor
,


Ahh yes, more dogma in order to not actually address the argument. I didn't realize information theory is stacking the deck.. Oh wait! it's a pre-stacked deck to which you required to make that post! Please try using some intellectual integrity in your responses vs resorting to nonsensical dogma and deflections. There is a reason why you are not going to be able to circumvent this argument, and that is exactly why you are resorting to the claim of a "stacked deck".. News flash, reality isn't fair, nor is it going to magically bend to your ideological points a view so you can feel that it isn't a stacked deck against you..


Quote
by requiring me to answer the question on your terms.

These aren't my terms, these are terms determined by information theory and reality son. I merely point them out for you. Your inability to address those terms is not my problem because I am equally bound to those terms. Information theory is not at all hard to understand sir, it's been well established for a very long time both philosophically, and scientifically.


Quote
The question is more complex than you allow for, and thus there is no way to provide a simple answer, without providing you with the opportunity to engage in sophistry.

Incorrect. The game of complexity states that the only answer is the simplest possible point where regression can not regress any further without becoming literal nothing. You might want to try and address that, especially in terms of consciousness.. It takes far more cause for us to be conscious than it does for the vacuum of space to exist.

Quote
Can I think, feel, apply, or do anthing without information, capacity, physical activity, or complexity? Of course not. Because, at least one part of my composite nature is material: requiring energy, physicality, complexity.

You are starting to catch on here. You only need now to understand that nothing is not a substance to which can support an existence. Non-materialism is literally stating non-existence by definition. So yes, your GOD should you think it were to exist would be bound to follow those very same rules and thus can not be the answer to existence, or infinite regress.

Quote
BUT, since God is none of these things (as demonstrated by my argument in a previous post, an argument that you have yet to address), he would not require them.


Here we go again to regressing to Nhillism as if that will win the debate! Even the idea of your GOD can not exist without those things. But hey, have fun in the faith of a nothing god..Atheists will be more than happy to accept that answer.
Quote
Again, your argument falls entirely flat. Your thoughts are stillborn.

Ahh, more social dogma? That was really intellectual of you. /sarcasm.
Logged
CRCulver
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Church of Finland and Romanian Orthodox Church
Posts: 1,159


St Stephen of Perm, missionary to speakers of Komi


WWW
« Reply #30 on: February 16, 2011, 04:00:27 PM »

This makes me wonder how many of you actually understand this debate. :/

Quite a few people here have formal training in the philosophy of religion, myself included.

For the rest of you, reading through TheJackel's website suggests that he isn't your typical, good-faith proponent of atheist philosophy, but rather suffers from some mental illness. I wouldn't waste your time engaging with him.
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,192


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #31 on: February 16, 2011, 04:03:00 PM »

This makes me wonder how many of you actually understand this debate. :/

Quite a few people here have formal training in the philosophy of religion, myself included.

For the rest of you, reading through TheJackel's website suggests that he isn't your typical, good-faith proponent of atheist philosophy, but rather suffers from some mental illness. I wouldn't waste your time engaging with him.
Considering TheJackel's last post, I think you are right.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
TheJackel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Materialist
Posts: 240


« Reply #32 on: February 16, 2011, 04:24:29 PM »

Quote
1. Everything that begins to exist must have a sufficient cause for it's existence.

Yep, and that is why spatial capacity, energy, information, and complexity begin at ground state. A state to which no further regression can be made simply because Nothing in literal context is impossible to exist. Consciousness, entities, life, chairs, ect can not solve this. Thus are irrelevant to existence because they are only products of.


Quote
2. Right now there are many things causing me to exist (including the parts that make me up).

Good Job! Now apply infinite regress and figure out how relevant your current state is to existence. You want to cause of causation right? Looking for that answer to why you exist isn't going to be found in another object, entity, or thing that is more complex than ground state, or you for that matter. If you want to worship something that you think made you like a cabbage patch doll, that's fine and dandy. But that doesn't make it capable to defy the same rules it must equally be bound to in order to exist itself. Fundamentally the only difference between you and this said diety is how much more able it could do things you seemingly are not able to do. Or how much more intelligent you think it is than you are. Problem is, it will require more cause to exist than you just because of it. It's a self-collapsing concept to begin with. And worse yet, an alien species more intelligent than man can easily suffice to fill that position. Or even man itself further in the future.


Quote
3. The chain of things causing me to exist is either infinite or finite.

That would be finite. There are several boundaries I can list here to which will satisfy that nicely. However, not really relevant to the subject because it too is bound to information theory, and material-physicality.

Quote
4. If the chain is infinite, then there is no sufficient reason for the existence of the chain, as each being depends on another for existence, but then none actually has being. Therefore, nothing would exist. But clearly things exist.

If it were infinite, you would be trying to argue pure solipsism. Sounds like you are trying to make GOD is existence argument.

Quote
5. Therefore the chain is finite and has a First Cause.

First cause would be the lowest level of complexity possible, and the substance of that. Anything else is entirely irrelevant to existence. And that includes said deity.
Quote
6. The First Cause is either composed of parts or is simple.

Both, and the Parts of it's base require no cause because the base has been shown to solve infinite regress by a literal opposite impossible. Something science has already done. So you can feel free to reference Capacity, ground state, information and energy.. Energy = all of those at the lowest possible level.

Your argument argues for an incredibly complex Deity while science argues for the source of complexity itself known as energy to which retain the basic fundamental laws of existence (positive, negative, and neutral) to which lead to complex such as this very post, or my very own thoughts!

Quote
7. If the First Cause is composed of parts, then it depends on the composition of its parts for its existence.

The parts of existence is the substance of existence itself.. Anything of complex that arises from it is not relevant to existence itself but slave to it for it's complexity

Example:

A glass Jar (metaphorically you, me, your GOD, or even the chair you sit in) can not be a glass object, or the complex structure of information it is without the sand from which its made from. The sand can not exist without the atoms and elements on the periodic table from which it's made from. None of those things can exist without the energy to which they are comprised of. The capacity for them to exist is equally bound to the same rules. Thus nothing of complex can answer the question of where it all begins, or began! And this is why Atheists have it correct when they say "who created your GOD?"..  Energy = the solving of infinite regress, and the establishment of a Universal Set of all Sets.  Energy =/= existence, information, capacity, and substance.
Quote
8. But then this would mean that the First Cause is caused, which is a contradiction.

Incorrect.. First cause is related to capacity to exist and the substance of that capacity to which it is made from. You can think of existence as an infinite volume of sand of all sands to where various objects, or things of complex can emerge from because the system itself is self-organizing, self-oscillating, and chaotic by virtue of the attributes of it's nature (positive, negative, and neutral). This is also why even pure solipsism would fail to address the argument!

Quote
9. Therefore the First Cause must be simple.

Correct, and it is. It's called Energy, not GOD. The substance of existence itself to which makes all things of complex possible. This is how information theory works.
« Last Edit: February 16, 2011, 04:47:58 PM by TheJackel » Logged
TheJackel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Materialist
Posts: 240


« Reply #33 on: February 16, 2011, 04:28:28 PM »

Quote
I wouldn't waste your time engaging with him.

This is like saying don't waste your time trying to intellectually engage in an honest debate. But if you require this argument as a position, you would be correct in your statement of being a waste of time because it actually requires you to address the logical fallacies of your position. If you can't honestly address those fallacies, why are you engaging in the debate to begin with?

Quote
For the rest of you, reading through TheJackel's website suggests that he isn't your typical, good-faith proponent of atheist philosophy, but rather suffers from some mental illness. I wouldn't waste your time engaging with him.

Good faith proponent doesnt' contradict themselves in their own statements here. Nor does one use social dogma as an argument of debate.

Quote
but rather suffers from some mental illness.

This is equal to scientologists calling anyone that doesn't agree with their ideological constructs and philosophies as evil, child rapists, or murders. Because if you actually had an honest argument of debate, you might actually realize futility of your use of such dogma.
« Last Edit: February 16, 2011, 04:36:58 PM by TheJackel » Logged
bogdan
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,615



« Reply #34 on: February 16, 2011, 05:13:06 PM »

The God that you are arguing against is not the Infinite God of Christianity, not even the god of philosophy. You are arguing against the old pagan concept of a god that is merely part of the system, not one that transcends it.

I would like Jackel to respond to this. He has ignored this point every time, and continues to base his arguments on a god of straw that we worship only in Jackel's mind.
« Last Edit: February 16, 2011, 05:16:54 PM by bogdan » Logged
Sleeper
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,256

On hiatus for the foreseeable future.


« Reply #35 on: February 16, 2011, 05:21:21 PM »

The God that you are arguing against is not the Infinite God of Christianity, not even the god of philosophy. You are arguing against the old pagan concept of a god that is merely part of the system, not one that transcends it.

I would like Jackel to respond to this. He has ignored this point every time, and continues to base his arguments on a god of straw that we worship only in Jackel's mind.

That's all TryingtoConvert ever did too. They don't know how to argue against the God of Orthodoxy.
Logged
TheJackel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Materialist
Posts: 240


« Reply #36 on: February 16, 2011, 06:47:22 PM »

The God that you are arguing against is not the Infinite God of Christianity, not even the god of philosophy. You are arguing against the old pagan concept of a god that is merely part of the system, not one that transcends it.

I would like Jackel to respond to this. He has ignored this point every time, and continues to base his arguments on a god of straw that we worship only in Jackel's mind.

Ahh the transcending of the system.. So your GOD wouldn't require information, or informational value in order to know, exist, or even be an ideological construct? Yeah, transcending reality into non-existence is pretty interesting stance to which I really don't mind accepting as your argument. you do realize the defecting to the other side of the argument doesn't win the debate correct? To be outside capacity alone would translate to non-existence of one's self. Logical fallacies will not magically become possible just because you can string a few words together to create a logical fallacy.

And I am arguing against any GOD sir, this has little to do with just the Pagan concept. If you feel you need to attach attributes that define non-existence to your GOD in order to feel like you have a winning argument, then feel free to do so. Every Atheist I know will gladly accept those terms of your argument to which translates to the nothing GOD but an idea GOD of a logical fallacy.

 

« Last Edit: February 16, 2011, 06:54:31 PM by TheJackel » Logged
TheJackel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Materialist
Posts: 240


« Reply #37 on: February 16, 2011, 06:50:39 PM »

Quote
That's all TryingtoConvert ever did too. They don't know how to argue against the God of Orthodoxy.

Incorrect, my arguments are stating a fact of reality. Your inability to deal with it is not my problem. And if I were trying to convert you, I would come out and say you should convert. I am pretty direct and blunt with my positions. If you can't properly address my arguments, then don't bother posting a reply. Especially when you can't do so without contradicting yourself against the very principles of my arguments.


« Last Edit: February 16, 2011, 06:51:47 PM by TheJackel » Logged
TheJackel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Materialist
Posts: 240


« Reply #38 on: February 16, 2011, 07:47:57 PM »

Can anyone here ever show me a Nothing Object? I am curious to see something made of nothing to which transcends the capacity of existence. o.O  Maybe that's why it's faith based. :/ When I was a Christian, I never took such a stance because I knew it was a logical fail in every way. I put more realistic views into the concept of GOD that never relied on logical fallacies. The only reason I don't believe in GOD's doesn't stem solely from my material-physical realist position even though it plays a major role in establishing that Atheistic stance.. It actually stems largely from this argument as well:

Quote
   Title of GOD is a Title of opinion. Thus no god exists, or ever existed regardless of entities that may or may not exist.

What this implies is the following:

    What it means is that such beliefs and titles are merely just that, and they are solely reliant on only those who give such titles, or believe in such things. Opinions only have worth to that which has the opinion. Hence, what are GOD's without something to grant them such a title? Under this logic GODS are inherently undefined to the extent that anything can be considered a GOD should the title be given. This includes you, the dirt you walk on, myself, birds, existence itself, or anything in or of existence. So either all things are GODS, or there are no such things as GODS!

And this too applies directly to information theory as stated above.
« Last Edit: February 16, 2011, 07:51:34 PM by TheJackel » Logged
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 7,014


"My god is greater."


« Reply #39 on: February 16, 2011, 07:58:08 PM »

Your face is a logical fallacy.
Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake
TheJackel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Materialist
Posts: 240


« Reply #40 on: February 16, 2011, 08:08:21 PM »

Your face is a logical fallacy.

Ok, let's keep the self-contradictions going? Seriously though, is that behavior even necessary?
Logged
Sleeper
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,256

On hiatus for the foreseeable future.


« Reply #41 on: February 16, 2011, 08:09:26 PM »

Quote
That's all TryingtoConvert ever did too. They don't know how to argue against the God of Orthodoxy.

Incorrect, my arguments are stating a fact of reality. Your inability to deal with it is not my problem.

I enjoy your conflation of my disinterest in replying to an inability to do so. Here I thought you were "stating facts about reality."  Roll Eyes

Quote
And if I were trying to convert you, I would come out and say you should convert. I am pretty direct and blunt with my positions. If you can't properly address my arguments, then don't bother posting a reply.

I'll post in whichever thread I feel like posting, thanks.  Smiley

Quote
Especially when you can't do so without contradicting yourself against the very principles of my arguments.

Not sure where this occurred but I'm all ears.
Logged
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 7,014


"My god is greater."


« Reply #42 on: February 16, 2011, 08:15:02 PM »

Your face is a logical fallacy.

Ok, let's keep the self-contradictions going? Seriously though, is that behavior even necessary?

Your face is a self-contradiction.
Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake
TheJackel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Materialist
Posts: 240


« Reply #43 on: February 16, 2011, 08:20:56 PM »

Wow, look at this thread spiral down the social dogma rabbit whole.. Way to show some intellectual integrity o.O 

« Last Edit: February 16, 2011, 08:23:21 PM by TheJackel » Logged
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 7,014


"My god is greater."


« Reply #44 on: February 16, 2011, 08:23:37 PM »

Wow, look at this thread spiral down the social dogma rabbit whole.. Way to show some intellectual integrity fellas..

Your face is a social dogma rabbit hole.

Such comments about a person's face are attacks on the person and not on his arguments, which is the definition of ad hominem. Not only that, but your insults are also quite juvenile and rude. One should hope to expect better from you than this. Therefore, you are receiving this warning to last for the next 40 days, since this is not the first time you've been so rude to other posters.

If you think this warning in error, please feel free to appeal it to Fr. George.

- PeterTheAleut
« Last Edit: February 17, 2011, 02:10:24 AM by PeterTheAleut » Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake
TheJackel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Materialist
Posts: 240


« Reply #45 on: February 16, 2011, 08:26:32 PM »

Quote
Your face is a social dogma rabbit hole.

Please abide by the rules of the forum.


# Respect Others -- Things can (and do) get heated on this board.  Any attempt to harass or threaten another poster, whether publically or privately, can and will result in a permanent ban.  Based on the severity of the incident, it may also warrant report to law enforcement authorities.  Keep civil and respectful of others. Also, please do NOT post others personal information (e.g. name, phone numbers, email, etc.) without their permission.

# Keep Threads on Target -- For the forum-challenged, a thread is a sequence of postings, or messages, related to a primary topic.  For purposes of continuity and consistency, please keep ALL threads on target to their original purpose.  If you want to deviate, start a new thread.

# Contain Conflict --  With religious discussion, disagreement is inevitable.  Please be civil and keep conflict (provided it's on topic) within the thread it was posted in.  If your conflict seems to be taking a thread off of its course, please start a new one.

« Last Edit: February 16, 2011, 08:42:18 PM by TheJackel » Logged
Sleeper
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,256

On hiatus for the foreseeable future.


« Reply #46 on: February 16, 2011, 09:04:36 PM »

I'm seriously cracking up Iconodule!  laugh
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,192


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #47 on: February 16, 2011, 09:06:38 PM »

I'm with iconodule here. Jackel's arguments are about as reasonable as 'your face' arguments.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
TheJackel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Materialist
Posts: 240


« Reply #48 on: February 16, 2011, 09:08:35 PM »

I'm with iconodule here. Jackel's arguments are about as reasonable as 'your face' arguments.

Incorrect. Wink

Stating something as an existing nothing is not reasonable.. Check the reasonableness of your arguments before suggesting others are magically not reasonable. If anything, I am the one getting a giggle out of this lol. I almost get the feeling that I am talking to Flat-Earthers :/ The same mentality of denial of reality in order to profess a fallacy. This to which dogma is used as an argument when one can not address the reality that their fallacy is just a logical fallacy. The circular logic of faith in the essence of Carl Sagan Dragons. Where is truth if it's nothing? What informational value is there when there is nothing there?


« Last Edit: February 16, 2011, 09:23:38 PM by TheJackel » Logged
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #49 on: February 16, 2011, 09:23:34 PM »

Stating something as an existing nothing is not reasonable.

God is not material, He is spiritual.

He created the material universe, but exists outside it.

You do not know God materially, but spiritually.
Logged


I'm going to need this.
TheJackel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Materialist
Posts: 240


« Reply #50 on: February 16, 2011, 09:27:41 PM »

Quote

God is not material, He is spiritual.

Spiritually nothing? Nothing can't be a something..

Quote
He created the material universe, but exists outside it.]He created the material universe, but exists outside it.

Outside the capacity to exist? So his place of existence is also made of nothing? This is getting good. Any evidence to support that argument? Oh, but there is none. :/

Quote
You do not know God materially, but spiritually.

You mean your emotional attachment to the idea or concept.  Undecided


« Last Edit: February 16, 2011, 09:35:46 PM by TheJackel » Logged
Sleeper
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,256

On hiatus for the foreseeable future.


« Reply #51 on: February 16, 2011, 09:30:58 PM »

Stating something as an existing nothing is not reasonable.

God is not material, He is spiritual.

He created the material universe, but exists outside it.

You do not know God materially, but spiritually.

Until the Incarnation happened, of course  Wink

But this is true. Logically, the First Cause cannot be within the system of causation or be required to be under its same rules.
Logged
PoorFoolNicholas
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Theologoumenon
Posts: 1,664


« Reply #52 on: February 16, 2011, 09:35:23 PM »

Let's say that for the sake of argument that your face was spiritual. Would it exist?
Logged
TheJackel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Materialist
Posts: 240


« Reply #53 on: February 16, 2011, 09:39:34 PM »

Quote
But this is true. Logically, the First Cause cannot be within the system of causation or be required to be under its same rules.

Firstly that is incorrect when the cause is the base substance of the entire system.. Your argument would self-collapse because you are attempting to suggest nothing is an existence, or form of existence and creation lol. Nothing can not even be a system, contain information, or be anything at all. Nice try though Wink
Logged
TheJackel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Materialist
Posts: 240


« Reply #54 on: February 16, 2011, 09:41:02 PM »

Let's say that for the sake of argument that your face was spiritual. Would it exist?

Good thing it's not spiritual otherwise It wouldn't exist. Hard to have a face with nothing Wink

Tell me, how many dimensions does it require to see a simple image of a face? When you are done, I would like you to draw me one made of nothing.


« Last Edit: February 16, 2011, 09:48:36 PM by TheJackel » Logged
Saint Iaint
This Poster Has Ignored Multiple Requests to Behave Better
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Once Delivered
Posts: 625


The Truth Shall Be Reviled


WWW
« Reply #55 on: February 16, 2011, 10:00:38 PM »

Your face is a logical fallacy.

Your face is a self-contradiction.


Your face is a social dogma rabbit hole.

Why is this allowed here?

Where are the valiant moderators now?

How exactly are you all presenting Christ to The Jackal here?

Would Christ mock this man if he came asking questions of Him??

~~~ ~~~ ~~~

Can anyone here ever show me a Nothing Object? I am curious to see something made of nothing to which transcends the capacity of existence.


Well, I think that so-called 'Dark Matter' fits that bill doesn't it (if it actually exists that is)?

"Remarkably, it turns out there is five times more material in clusters of galaxies than we would expect from the galaxies and hot gas we can see. Most of the stuff in clusters of galaxies is invisible and, since these are the largest structures in the Universe held together by gravity, scientists then conclude that most of the matter in the entire Universe is invisible."

'Dark Matter'

Or how about the so-called 'God-particle' (Higgs boson)?

"Higgs boson is a hypothetical elementary particle predicted to exist by the Standard Model of particle physics. It is the only Standard Model particle not yet observed. An experimental observation of it would help to explain how otherwise massless elementary particles cause matter to have mass.  *If it exists*, the Higgs boson is an integral and pervasive component of the material world."

'God-Particle'

†IC XC†
†NI KA†


You were warned before to not criticize moderator action or inaction on public threads. For doing so yet again, and so soon after your previous warning for this, you are now on Post Moderation for the next 40 days.

If you think this action unfair, please appeal it to Fr. George.

- PeterTheAleut
« Last Edit: February 16, 2011, 11:31:46 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged

Many will follow their shameful ways and will bring the way of truth into disrepute...

Therefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith, not giving heed to Jewish fables and commandments of men who turn from the truth.
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,418



« Reply #56 on: February 16, 2011, 10:17:07 PM »

One would think that the property of omnipotence would take care of God being bound by any human-delineated rules, but in any case all you might be able to prove here is that God is being poorly-described, not that he cannot exist.
Logged
TheJackel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Materialist
Posts: 240


« Reply #57 on: February 16, 2011, 11:21:40 PM »

Quote
Well, I think that so-called 'Dark Matter' fits that bill doesn't it (if it actually exists that is)?

"Remarkably, it turns out there is five times more material in clusters of galaxies than we would expect from the galaxies and hot gas we can see. Most of the stuff in clusters of galaxies is invisible and, since these are the largest structures in the Universe held together by gravity, scientists then conclude that most of the matter in the entire Universe is invisible."

'Dark Matter'

Or how about the so-called 'God-particle' (Higgs boson)?

"Higgs boson is a hypothetical elementary particle predicted to exist by the Standard Model of particle physics. It is the only Standard Model particle not yet observed. An experimental observation of it would help to explain how otherwise massless elementary particles cause matter to have mass.  *If it exists*, the Higgs boson is an integral and pervasive component of the material world."

'God-Particle'


Both are good examples,.. Dark matter and energy refers to things that don't shine. Hence one of the concepts in the physics are basically as follows:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eXRSHkO05bk&feature=player_embedded

The Higgs or GOD particle is the metaphor or name given to a particle that gives rise to mass, to which is the basis of matter (energy in different states). This however, is not related to ground state except in how matter arises from ground state. In science the process of borrowing energy from the future can be described as follows:

This is where zero point energy, as discussed above, is zero in the form of something like a qbit (both 0,1)..(clarification) So unlike binary code where the classic bit is either a 0 or a 1, or two separate switches or elements, its more like the Qbits to which are both 0 and 1 at the same time. This gives you a zero value base complexity, and that means you can with enough increase in complexity achieve consciousness, and the probability of any pattern arising from zero without the need for intelligent intervention. Also, IBM has also proven this to an extent with the 4 atom quantum computer.

Qbit

There is also this:
The Engineering of Conscious Quantum Computing.

-----

The issue when it comes to Zero Point energy / ground state:

Key:

* 0 = zero = Qbit = (0,1) = energy (base to potential self-oscillating energy)
* (0,1) = ground state
* 0 = no other objects or complexities higher than zero (ground state)
* 1= the only object even if there are an infinite number of other zero's (0,1)'s or points in space.. Because it's only relative to it's own point in space. Thus is zero point energy. However this could interact or interfere with other 0 points of energy and generate fluctuations and eventually the possibility of expansion (the Big Bang) and the rise to complexity. This being of course the Universe as we know it.

So in Quantum Electrodynamics, the particle and anti-particles are generated by borrowing energy from other zeros (0,1)'s (the future) to create a fluctuation that spawns them. So adding (0,1) to (0,1) gives you a possibility of getting (0,2). So these particles comeback together and destroy each other, leaving of course a byproduct that makes up the stuff of Stars and ourselves (matter).

non-existence / non-material / impossible:
(0,0)
- 0 literal energy
- 0 Dimensional or Spatial Capacity
- Can not be a person place or thing (noun), or can not have or gain mass. Nor can it be or have matter, energy, or informational value in the literal sense. It can not even be or contain itself.


Btw, thanks for the interesting links Smiley
« Last Edit: February 16, 2011, 11:31:13 PM by TheJackel » Logged
TheJackel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Materialist
Posts: 240


« Reply #58 on: February 16, 2011, 11:25:28 PM »

One would think that the property of omnipotence would take care of God being bound by any human-delineated rules, but in any case all you might be able to prove here is that God is being poorly-described, not that he cannot exist.

Good thing Omipotence can't make nothing a something. or allow the possibility of omniscience to learn or create something to which it does not already know. They are self-collapsing contradictions.
« Last Edit: February 16, 2011, 11:26:36 PM by TheJackel » Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,325


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #59 on: February 16, 2011, 11:27:43 PM »

Quote
Your face is a social dogma rabbit hole.

Please abide by the rules of the forum.


# Respect Others -- Things can (and do) get heated on this board.  Any attempt to harass or threaten another poster, whether publically or privately, can and will result in a permanent ban.  Based on the severity of the incident, it may also warrant report to law enforcement authorities.  Keep civil and respectful of others. Also, please do NOT post others personal information (e.g. name, phone numbers, email, etc.) without their permission.

# Keep Threads on Target -- For the forum-challenged, a thread is a sequence of postings, or messages, related to a primary topic.  For purposes of continuity and consistency, please keep ALL threads on target to their original purpose.  If you want to deviate, start a new thread.

# Contain Conflict --  With religious discussion, disagreement is inevitable.  Please be civil and keep conflict (provided it's on topic) within the thread it was posted in.  If your conflict seems to be taking a thread off of its course, please start a new one.


TheJackel,

Rather than take it upon yourself to moderate other posters, we the real moderators of this forum would rather you report the offending post to us via the "Report to Moderator" function (at the bottom right of each post) and let us act upon it as we deem appropriate. Otherwise, you appear to just be citing the rules in order to influence the debate in your favor.

- PeterTheAleut
Moderator
Logged
Shiny
Site Supporter
Moderated
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Groucho Marxist
Jurisdiction: Dahntahn Stoop Haus
Posts: 13,267


Paint It Red


« Reply #60 on: February 16, 2011, 11:31:03 PM »

I'm with iconodule here. Jackel's arguments are about as reasonable as 'your face' arguments.
LOL
Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

– St. Ambrose of Milan
TheJackel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Materialist
Posts: 240


« Reply #61 on: February 16, 2011, 11:33:27 PM »

Quote
Your face is a social dogma rabbit hole.

Please abide by the rules of the forum.


# Respect Others -- Things can (and do) get heated on this board.  Any attempt to harass or threaten another poster, whether publically or privately, can and will result in a permanent ban.  Based on the severity of the incident, it may also warrant report to law enforcement authorities.  Keep civil and respectful of others. Also, please do NOT post others personal information (e.g. name, phone numbers, email, etc.) without their permission.

# Keep Threads on Target -- For the forum-challenged, a thread is a sequence of postings, or messages, related to a primary topic.  For purposes of continuity and consistency, please keep ALL threads on target to their original purpose.  If you want to deviate, start a new thread.

# Contain Conflict --  With religious discussion, disagreement is inevitable.  Please be civil and keep conflict (provided it's on topic) within the thread it was posted in.  If your conflict seems to be taking a thread off of its course, please start a new one.


TheJackel,

Rather than take it upon yourself to moderate other posters, we the real moderators of this forum would rather you report the offending post to us via the "Report to Moderator" function (at the bottom right of each post) and let us act upon it as we deem appropriate. Otherwise, you appear to just be citing the rules in order to influence the debate in your favor.

- PeterTheAleut
Moderator


Nope, I reminded him of the rules to get him to engage in the discussion vs engage in social dogma to which is off-topic. There is no way that is trying to influence the debate because it has nothing to do with they actually subject of the debate... Otherwise noted.
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,325


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #62 on: February 16, 2011, 11:39:33 PM »

Quote
Your face is a social dogma rabbit hole.

Please abide by the rules of the forum.


# Respect Others -- Things can (and do) get heated on this board.  Any attempt to harass or threaten another poster, whether publically or privately, can and will result in a permanent ban.  Based on the severity of the incident, it may also warrant report to law enforcement authorities.  Keep civil and respectful of others. Also, please do NOT post others personal information (e.g. name, phone numbers, email, etc.) without their permission.

# Keep Threads on Target -- For the forum-challenged, a thread is a sequence of postings, or messages, related to a primary topic.  For purposes of continuity and consistency, please keep ALL threads on target to their original purpose.  If you want to deviate, start a new thread.

# Contain Conflict --  With religious discussion, disagreement is inevitable.  Please be civil and keep conflict (provided it's on topic) within the thread it was posted in.  If your conflict seems to be taking a thread off of its course, please start a new one.


TheJackel,

Rather than take it upon yourself to moderate other posters, we the real moderators of this forum would rather you report the offending post to us via the "Report to Moderator" function (at the bottom right of each post) and let us act upon it as we deem appropriate. Otherwise, you appear to just be citing the rules in order to influence the debate in your favor.

- PeterTheAleut
Moderator


Nope, I reminded him of the rules to get him to engage in the discussion vs engage in social dogma to which is off-topic. There is no way that is trying to influence the debate because it has nothing to do with they actually subject of the debate... Otherwise noted.
And do note also that we don't permit public argument with moderatorial decisions here (posted in green text such as this). If you wish to question a moderator's decision, please do so via private message to that moderator and/or to Fr. George, our Global Moderator.
« Last Edit: February 16, 2011, 11:42:53 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
Sleeper
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,256

On hiatus for the foreseeable future.


« Reply #63 on: February 17, 2011, 01:10:41 AM »

Quote
But this is true. Logically, the First Cause cannot be within the system of causation or be required to be under its same rules.

Firstly that is incorrect when the cause is the base substance of the entire system.. Your argument would self-collapse because you are attempting to suggest nothing is an existence, or form of existence and creation lol. Nothing can not even be a system, contain information, or be anything at all. Nice try though Wink
This makes no sense. The cause is the base substance? Forgive me for asking the obvious, but what in the world caused the base substance?

I'm not suggesting nothing is an existence, I'm saying the First Cause cannot be under the same rules that caused entities are under.
Logged
TheJackel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Materialist
Posts: 240


« Reply #64 on: February 17, 2011, 01:32:20 AM »

Quote
This makes no sense. The cause is the base substance? Forgive me for asking the obvious, but what in the world caused the base substance?

Actually it makes total sense. Without substance there wouldn't be anything at all, and that is impossible. You get no structure, no dimensional value, no-capacity, informational value, no existence. I asked people here to draw me a face with no dimensional value for a reason. Or picture one with zero dimensional value. Nothing has no informational value because it can not contain any or have any information. Thus the only value being referenced here is the information in regards to the idea alone. :/


Quote
I'm not suggesting nothing is an existence, I'm saying the First Cause cannot be under the same rules that caused entities are under.


Actually you are if you are trying to state the object of your belief system is made of nothing. (isn't made of anything).
« Last Edit: February 17, 2011, 01:39:26 AM by TheJackel » Logged
Sleeper
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,256

On hiatus for the foreseeable future.


« Reply #65 on: February 17, 2011, 01:35:56 AM »

That only makes sense if one is a materialist though. Why have you decided that "spiritual" means non-existent? Why do the rules of caused, dependent things need to apply to the uncaused non-dependent First Cause?
Logged
TheJackel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Materialist
Posts: 240


« Reply #66 on: February 17, 2011, 01:57:29 AM »

That only makes sense if one is a materialist though. Why have you decided that "spiritual" means non-existent? Why do the rules of caused, dependent things need to apply to the uncaused non-dependent First Cause?

I haven not decided that spiritual means non-existent. I decided spirituality assumed to be made of nothing would not exist. And spatial capacity has no cause. it's an infinite volume because negative or no capacity is literally impossible to exist. Thus the substance to which it's comprised of equally has no cause.

Translation:

Existence exists without creation simply because the opposite can not exist. Negative objects, entities, spirits, GODS, ect do not exist because they cannot exist. A negative capacity can not contain anything! This directly translates to dimensional values. The rules are defined by the substance of existence and the base properties there of at the lowest possible state of complexity. That point before literal zero because literal zero is impossible.

It's well stated that there can be no Phenomenon without material-physicality or capacity. Otherwise you would be trying to argue a nothing capacity that translates to zero capacity or the inability to contain anything. That includes your supposed idea of GOD... It's far more realistic to believe something with consciousness to which has more Complexity than man could have set off the Big Bang than a an argument for a conscious entity that has zero complexity. Remember, the big Bang is not reference to the entire sum of existence or spatial capacity. It's an expansion of space-time (think of it as a flat disk galaxy like the milky-way within a much larger volume of space). It's expanding into an infinite volume. Our observable universe that derived from the Big Bang is actually finite. There is plenty room out there for something more realistic to exist that doesn't require logical fallacies in order to exist. At this point it only becomes opinion on whether or not you would call such entities as GODS.

So your GOD must have informational value, complexity, structure, and capacity in order to exist, to even be plausible. It doesn't matter of you want to believe it could otherwise because it's not going to change that from being a fact of reality. :/ And technically, consciousness is not ever uncased. It's a continuous emerging property that is always in the process of being created from the flow of information/energy. It can't exist without it, or exist without a place to exist in. It requires capacity of containment. Especially if you want to argue us all as being individuals and not some figment of the imagination of a solipsist mind. :/

If you wanted to say there is a dimensional plane out there called Heaven, I wouldn't have a problem with it as long as it retains to the rules of existence, and information theory. Under information theory, purpose is never lost and follows entropy. Maybe we can consciously exist in non-biological form.. But never as nothing. As you can see, more realistic views without logical fallacies don't equate to the dismantlement of your ideology. It just makes it more realistic and plausible.

« Last Edit: February 17, 2011, 02:24:00 AM by TheJackel » Logged
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,418



« Reply #67 on: February 17, 2011, 06:52:16 AM »

One would think that the property of omnipotence would take care of God being bound by any human-delineated rules, but in any case all you might be able to prove here is that God is being poorly-described, not that he cannot exist.

Good thing Omipotence can't make nothing a something. or allow the possibility of omniscience to learn or create something to which it does not already know. They are self-collapsing contradictions.

As a rule the first approach to omnipotence as a property is to answer all "can God" questions with "yes!" and then try to figure out whether the predicate is even coherent. Therefore God can "make nothing a something", assuming that the phrase means something. It isn't valid to use contradictions with other divine attributes in refutation because one of those attributes says that God is incomprehensible; finding supposed contradictions proves nothing.
Logged
bogdan
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,615



« Reply #68 on: February 17, 2011, 10:15:12 AM »

You are still applying the rules of the created realm to an uncreated God. Your assumptions are all based on this mistake. Your materialist standard for existence (an unproven presupposition) cannot apply to God, because he is utterly beyond existence or non-existence.
Logged
TheJackel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Materialist
Posts: 240


« Reply #69 on: February 17, 2011, 11:20:13 AM »

One would think that the property of omnipotence would take care of God being bound by any human-delineated rules, but in any case all you might be able to prove here is that God is being poorly-described, not that he cannot exist.

Good thing Omipotence can't make nothing a something. or allow the possibility of omniscience to learn or create something to which it does not already know. They are self-collapsing contradictions.

As a rule the first approach to omnipotence as a property is to answer all "can God" questions with "yes!" and then try to figure out whether the predicate is even coherent. Therefore God can "make nothing a something", assuming that the phrase means something. It isn't valid to use contradictions with other divine attributes in refutation because one of those attributes says that God is incomprehensible; finding supposed contradictions proves nothing.


Omnipotence is a logical fallacy.. Your inability to understand why that is just means you are not able to comprehend what contradicts it.

Quote
It isn't valid to use contradictions with other divine attributes in refutation because one of those attributes says that God is incomprehensible

No, this is a plea for ignorance.. And it is entirely a valid use of a contradiction. And to say GOD isn't made of anything completely explains why your GOD is incomprehensible because it wouldn't exist lol. You can't comprehend nothing (total utter irrelevance) as being something of relevance lol. WOW, do you people even know how to use the English Language, or what the definition of these words mean?. Nothing can't do anything lol.. Your ability to string words together to form logical fallacies will never make the logical fallacy even remotely possible, much less intellectually coherent.

Quote
attributes says that God is incomprehensible

This is always the common circular logic theists use when trying to reinforce total and utter logical failure. It's a neat little mind trick, and really shows why you don't understand the basics of brainwashing. You cling to trying to make your GOD undefinable while at the same time you try to define it lol. You better work on your debating skills in terms of stating your GOD as incomprehensible because you are contradicting yourself all over the place.  Your argument that it's made of nothing and then say it's something is laughable. It's pretty much intentional stupidity. Before you can give a GOD any attributes, you will first need to validate it's existence and it's supposed attributes anyways lol.  Oh, sorry its a total an utter nothing and infinite Carl Sagan Dragon.. So you have no position to be claiming GOD is anything at all, especially when you make the claim that it isn't made of anything at all..

Let's see.. Not made of anything:

No substance = no information, no complexity, no capacity, no structure, no dimensional value.. = nothing = non-existent= really incomprehensible lol

LOL.. Nothing is all powerfully not Powerful.. And you can't make or create from a position of nothing, or from nothing LOL.. It would take literally intentional circular stupidity just even believe that. Your failure to comprehend a simple definition of a single word and why it collapses your entire argument is rather sadly amusing. :/ And I can understand why you cling to the term "incomprehensible" because it literally is incomprehensible if you try to make the object of your idea to be made of nothing! Sorry, but son, but your idea is not the object of your idea, and Objects can not be nothing lol.

Edited: After the last post was made below.

At this juncture there can be no further debate.. I fully comprehend you position at this point in time Smiley



« Last Edit: February 17, 2011, 11:43:05 AM by TheJackel » Logged
TheJackel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Materialist
Posts: 240


« Reply #70 on: February 17, 2011, 11:21:59 AM »

You are still applying the rules of the created realm to an uncreated God. Your assumptions are all based on this mistake. Your materialist standard for existence (an unproven presupposition) cannot apply to God, because he is utterly beyond existence or non-existence.

That's because I can, and because I'm not stupid lol. I don't use intentional stupidity as an argument. Such as:

Quote
because he is utterly beyond existence or non-existence.

LOL. This has got to be the best one-liner I've ever heard Tongue I will gladly accept that argument lol
« Last Edit: February 17, 2011, 11:31:50 AM by TheJackel » Logged
dcommini
Tha mi sgulan na Trianaid
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 1,203


Beannachd Dia dhuit

dcommini
WWW
« Reply #71 on: February 17, 2011, 12:01:44 PM »

Wow, this guy tosses around the word "incorrect" as much as and as care free as Alfred... Debating style is about the same, too.

I'll lay this down in nerd terms for you. I am a computer programmer. A program I make doesn't exist until I make it. After I make the program I am not bound to the laws of the program since I made the program. Also, I am not a part of the program, but I am the first cause of the program.
Logged

Gun cuireadh do chupa thairis le slàinte agus sona - May your cup overflow with health and happiness
Check out my blog...
Benjamin the Red
Recovering Calvinist
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America, Diocese of Dallas and the South ||| American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 1,601


Have mercy on me, O God, have mercy on me.


« Reply #72 on: February 17, 2011, 12:32:10 PM »

I'm not sure why this argument is still going on. We've acknowledged, defined and debunked this argument already.

TheJackal is arguing from an empiricist perspective. I respect empiricism, and consider myself an empiricist. They make considerably more sense than the rationalist arguments, like the "Father" of modern philosophy, Descartes. Guys like him are just annoying. I mean, an evil deity manipulating mathematics? Come on.

However, Orthodox Christianity did not develop in the same time period or cultural framework as these forms of Western thought, and do not conform to their comfortable little categories. This leads many to dismiss it because it doesn't fit their paradigm, and gave me a rough time, coming from a Western background as a Reformation-era Christian (Presbyterian). Orthodoxy didn't fit in my worldview, and therefore it just didn't make logical sense. So, I understand the frustration.

The two big arguments here have already been defined. Our atheist friend has constructed arguments against a pagan god, who operates in the system, and when we point that out, he begins arguing against a "god of the gaps" (a "nothing of something") that we use to halt the infinite regress of creation, and states that this is a logical fallacy.

The arguments presented state that God must conform to the created world in order to be believed in. Our empiricist friend, our materialist friend, wants a God that can be easily observed, measured and repeated. I.e., he wants a containable and limited deity in which to believe. Fortunately, we do not have a God which is so frail.

If you want a measureable, observable deity...what good is it? If you limit it and define it clearly so that there is nothing transcendent, nothing mysterious, nothing awesome about it...what answers have you really arrived at? What revelation is there to have? You're seeking a god of which we have no knowledge. I have never encountered such a deity. If I did, why would I even bother to mention it? It doesn't seem like it would be anything noteworthy anyway. It could not solve our problems or save our souls. It would just be a waste of time.
Logged

"Hades is not a place, no, but a state of the soul. It begins here on earth. Just so, paradise begins in the soul of a man here in the earthly life. Here we already have contact with the divine..." -St. John, Wonderworker of Shanghai and San Francisco, Homily On the Sunday of Orthodoxy
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,192


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #73 on: February 17, 2011, 12:57:47 PM »

That only makes sense if one is a materialist though. Why have you decided that "spiritual" means non-existent? Why do the rules of caused, dependent things need to apply to the uncaused non-dependent First Cause?

I haven not decided that spiritual means non-existent. I decided spirituality assumed to be made of nothing would not exist. And spatial capacity has no cause. it's an infinite volume because negative or no capacity is literally impossible to exist. Thus the substance to which it's comprised of equally has no cause.

All logical arguments are composed of three things. First, we have terms. Terms are either clearly defined or ambiguous. Second, there are statements or premises. These statements are either true or false. Finally, you have the formal structure of an argument that is either valid, or invalid. In order create a good argument, a person must have clearly defined terms, premises that are true, and valid formal logic. In order to demosntrate an error in another person's reasoning, all one has to do is show that the either the terms are unclear, the permises are false, or the reasoning is invalid. I think I can show that your argument here is a bad argument by demstrating the the ambiguity of of the terms you use to define your opponent's position, which leads you to create the false premise that Theists/non-materialists believe in spirits that are nothing.
You begin by stating that spirits are made of nothing. The term that is ambiguous here is "made of nothing". We need to be clear about what you mean by this and what a Theist means by this because I am certain that here is where the disconnect exists. For the Theist to say that God is made of nothing, does not mean what you think they mean. First,what the Theist means is that God is not made, not that he is not existent, not that there is no God, but simply that God is not made. He is not composed of parts, and he is uncaused and non-contingent. For this reason he is the sufficient reason for his own existence. This is a far cry from your undederstanding of the term, and you have yet to address this understanding. Second, by saying that God is not a thing, we are not saying that he is nothing in the term of non-existence. We are saying that he is not a thing, that he is not an object for us to analyze but absolute subject, the ultimate "I". Again, there is no suggestion here of non-existence, but rather of absolute existence.
Now God and non-existence are on completely opposite ends of the spectrum (Though God is even beyond this spectrum itself, but I am using this convention to demonstrate a point). On the one hand terms like like "thing" and "made" don't apply to God because he is absolute subsistent existence, beyond such limits. On the other hand "thing" and "made" don't apply to non-existence for completely different reasons, because non-existence is an entirely empty category. So the non-application of these terms to God and non-existence is for two entirely different reasons, and is NO way a univocal non-application. Thus we say of God that he is no-thing, or no given particular thing that we can analyze, because God is beyond such a category. When we say that non-existence is nothing that is  because it doesn't exist. Until you clarify the term "not made" and understand what we actually believe about God, you will not be able to even begin engaging us in a fruitful discussion, regardless of whether you agree with us or not.
« Last Edit: February 17, 2011, 01:00:54 PM by Papist » Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,418



« Reply #74 on: February 17, 2011, 01:02:53 PM »

Omnipotence is a logical fallacy.. Your inability to understand why that is just means you are not able to comprehend what contradicts it.

You say this as if logical fallacy were actually expected to be convincing. It's apparent you will indulge in typical Colluphidist lack of reply when I say so, but your failure to reconcile omnipotence with the other attributes of the Deity doesn't compel me, even less so than my refusal to accept your statements compels you. It has already be ascribed to God that he is incomprehensible, so it is unsurprising that one can find apparent contradictions.

The next step past that lies in a very careful examination of what "capability" means, since after all one could argue that if God has a definite nature and will (which as far as I am concerned are the only really important fundamental properties of God), He is "limited" in the sense that he acts in accordance with that will. The root issue here, really, is that this isn't what believers mean when they say that He is omnipotent.

And that takes us to empiricism. I'm an empiricist about God; you are not. I may not be able to describe God adequately to you (and indeed I am bound to say that eventually some degree of insurmountable inaccuracy is going to be reached) but when it comes to that describing surely people who claim to know God have a credibility in talking about Him that you, as someone who claims to not know God, inevitably lack. You are playing a sort of Socratic game here but in the end it is they who are the authority on God, not you, so that you really are obligated to accept their corrections to the definition. If they say, "well, no, in the sense that you are trying to use the word, God isn't omnipotent, but His power over creation is nonetheless not bound by any physical law", then it is they who set the agenda, not you; the concession doesn't amount to an admission that God doesn't exist, but merely that He has been poorly described. And since poverty of description is already stated as a principle, that doesn't get us anywhere except for really pinning down your insistence that your reasoning is a sufficiently good test, which I would absolutely dispute.
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,192


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #75 on: February 17, 2011, 01:37:32 PM »

TRUTH VS FALLACY:

So the first thing we must do is establish the differences between truth, faith, and belief.. You can say this is Truth VS Fallacy, and that we all know truth only comes to be realized when it has faced rigorously harsh doses of self scrutiny. So what is the differences between truth, belief, and faith? Well, how about we find out by taking a closer look at each of these terms so we can establish a foundation for determining how they apply to the world we live in.
As always, you are assuming the conclusion in your premise, which is not an argument, but an assertion. It's the logical fallacy of begging the question. You start by conflating faith and belief with fallacy, and disregard the possibility of faith actually being faith in that which is true, without even defending this position. If truth is the correspondence between what is said or thought and what actually is, then there is no reason to assume that faith contradicts truth. If what I believe, whether I reach that conclusion through rigorous systematic logic, empirical verification, or faithful assent to Divine Revelation, is a correspondence with reality, then I have truth.
Most things in life that we believe, we actually accept by faith. That doesn't make them any less true, it just means that I am putting my trust in some one else to be speaking the truth. Examples of facts in life that I accept by faith:
1. George Washington existed. I have never done any historical investigation of my own into the existence or non-existence of this matter, so I have put my faith in the authorities that say that he did exist.
2. It is impossible to square a circle. I have never seen the arguments for against, but I believe it to be true based on what I have been told.
3. The center of a cell is the nucleus and contains DNA. Do you think I have ever done a scientific experiment in order to conclude that this is true? Absolutely not. But I have faith in the idea that the people who have done the proper experiments are speaking the truth.
Of course these are matters of human faith, and not the Divine gift of Faith that comes from God, but you see that we know many things even without rigorous demonstration.

* Truth: substantiated unarguable information that is validated without possible argument against, or to where evidence is sufficient to give it substantial value.
Actually, truth is the correspondence of what a person says or thinks with reality. Or, as Aristotle says, saying what is, is, and what is not, is not. The Epicureans new that matter was composed of atoms well before there was sufficient evidence to demonstrate this. They possessed truth even without rigorous demonstration.

* Faith: The hoping of what you think is divine truth is actually true when there is no means of validation to give it substantiation.. It's a means to keep one believing irregardless if it's proven false, irrelevant, as a logical fallacy, or simply impossible.
Wrong again. Faith is  personal and relational matter. Like I know that my parents love me, without the possibility of rigorous demonstration, I still have good reason to believe they love me because I know them through the relationship they have with me. Similarly, I know that there is a God and that he loves me because of the personal impact he has on my life.
Further, I have other substantial reasons for believing in God. First, there are the logical proofs for the existence of God (not their caricatures).
Next, there is the testimony of martyrs, who were very wise, yet were willing to give up their lives for the truth.
Next, is the testimony of the saints, who were very wise, and worthy of trust, who experienced the reality of God in profound ways, and have shared that reality with us.
Next there are the probable arguments for the existence of God. All of these give us reason to believe beyond just wanting to believe.
Also, if it was absolutely logically impossible for God not to exist, or we knew atheism to be true, of course I would not believe in God. As it stands, the very opposite is true.
* Belief :

A: Religion - believing in what you perceive to be true irregardless of validity, and in this case it is highly dependent on Faith for support. Otherwise a collapse of belief would likely occur (me as an example of a former Christian), or the denial of reality will likely occur in order for a belief to be held.
You must have been a fundamentalist protestant, because there is nothing in the Apostolic Faith that is invalid nor anything that contradicts reality.


B: Science, logic, and reason - Believing what what is true by the evidence to which supports it.

Human Reason is all of the powers of the human person that are used to determine truth, outside of Divine Faith.
Logic is actually not evidence based, but the formal structure of how the mind thinks in order to achieve valid conclusions.
The term science is so misapplied in modern society, that its ridiculous. Science is the study of anything in it's ultimate causes.
1. Philosophy = The Science that studies the ultimate causes of reality via human reason.
2. Theology = The Science of THE ultimate cause, God, via Divine Revelation
3. Natural Science = The study of the material and efficient causes of reality via human reason and observation.
4. Empirical Science = The science that studies material causes via empirical/sensory investigation.
5. Mathematics = The science of numbers
ETC. ETC. ETC.


Example Truth:

   Absolute substantiated fact = Existence can be verified without argument to exist simply because nonexistence can not be a literal person, place, or thing of existence. Nonexistence can not be a literal noun!


What is your point?

Example Fallacy:[/b]

    A faith based belief = believing a GOD created existence without having to explain how one can preexist existence in order to create it.

Theist's don't believe that God preexisted existence. Rather, God is absolute sub sistent existence, the fullness of being. All created reality hardly being at all in comparison.

What has all the weight in relevance to reality?
* The one with all the evidence to support it.

If God exists, regardless of whether one can prove it (and I absolutely believe that you can prove it), he would be the fullness of relevance itself, and all others would be irrelevant.

Which one has intellectual integrity?
* The one with all the evidence to support it

Yes and no. I think that there are plenty of valid rational arguments in favor of the existence of God. That being said, if God were to directly reveal himself to some one, outside of empirically verifiability, and that person did not accept the reality of God, such a person would not have intellectual integrity.

* The one willing to self-scrutinize it's beliefs in favor of reaching for a definable and tangible truth based on the Scientific Method, logic, and reason to where the evidence dictates the value of the belief system in order to avoid being dictated or clung to logical fallacies.

Math is not based on the scientific method. Does this mean that Mathematicians have no intellectual integrity?

* The one that doesn't assume it's truth, or truth without evidence.

It does not take blind faith to believe in God. There are plenty of rational reasons. Further, there is the testimony of the saints and martyrs, as well as the effects that God has on our lives.
I will address your article in another post.
« Last Edit: February 17, 2011, 01:42:16 PM by Papist » Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,192


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #76 on: February 17, 2011, 01:45:29 PM »

Quote
But this is true. Logically, the First Cause cannot be within the system of causation or be required to be under its same rules.

Firstly that is incorrect when the cause is the base substance of the entire system.. Your argument would self-collapse because you are attempting to suggest nothing is an existence, or form of existence and creation lol. Nothing can not even be a system, contain information, or be anything at all. Nice try though Wink
Because the First Cause is the First Cause, he is by nature not part of the system. Because, as I have demonstrated elsewhere, that he is simple and uncomposed, he is completely different than the beings in the system. Our position is not that the first cause is the base substance of the system. If that were the case, God would be a contingent limited being, and then would need a cause, making him not the first cause, but that is a contradiction. You are grasping at straws buddy.
« Last Edit: February 17, 2011, 01:45:57 PM by Papist » Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,192


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #77 on: February 17, 2011, 01:48:58 PM »

One would think that the property of omnipotence would take care of God being bound by any human-delineated rules, but in any case all you might be able to prove here is that God is being poorly-described, not that he cannot exist.

Good thing Omipotence can't make nothing a something. or allow the possibility of omniscience to learn or create something to which it does not already know. They are self-collapsing contradictions.
Why don't you elaborate on why you see a contradiction here. I am ceratain that I can refute your position.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
bogdan
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,615



« Reply #78 on: February 17, 2011, 03:42:38 PM »

You are still applying the rules of the created realm to an uncreated God. Your assumptions are all based on this mistake. Your materialist standard for existence (an unproven presupposition) cannot apply to God, because he is utterly beyond existence or non-existence.

That's because I can, and because I'm not stupid lol. I don't use intentional stupidity as an argument. Such as:

Quote
because he is utterly beyond existence or non-existence.

LOL. This has got to be the best one-liner I've ever heard Tongue I will gladly accept that argument lol

Ah, brilliance on display! When faced with an argument you can't refute, you resort to "LOL, you're stupid."
« Last Edit: February 17, 2011, 03:53:50 PM by bogdan » Logged
TheJackel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Materialist
Posts: 240


« Reply #79 on: February 18, 2011, 12:54:01 AM »

Quote
Ah, brilliance on display! When faced with an argument you can't refute, you resort to "LOL, you're stupid."

Actually not.. It's mostly teabaggery pleading for ignorance because they are not intelligent enough to comprehend the definition of Nothing. LOL. So of course I am going to laugh at that. They can try and rationalize the logical fallacy into their own meaning of truth, or self-invented ideological concept of what they think truth is, and it will not ever make nothing be anything more than total utter irrelevance.. Intentional stupidity doesn't make anyone here at all intelligent. It Just makes people begging for ignorance because that's all they have to go on... No different than Flat Earthers begging for peoples ignorance to believe the Earth is Flat when it's not.. NEWS FLASH, your beliefs do not bend reality in accordance to your beliefs lol. False truth or delusional interpretations of, will never make them true. The only truth to it is the toss salad of words you used to construct the fallacy into an ideological construct.  That's a psychological problem or an educational failure problem.

And that is why the argument that your GOD exists outside existence and non-existence is just a perfect example of intentional stupidity (this doesn't make them dumb, just obviously intentionally playing dumb.. Kind of like lying for Jesus).

Quote
When faced with an argument you can't refute,

Actually I did refute it. You also might want to learn what words actually mean.

Anyone here care to define the word Nothing for us?



« Last Edit: February 18, 2011, 01:13:16 AM by TheJackel » Logged
Sleeper
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,256

On hiatus for the foreseeable future.


« Reply #80 on: February 18, 2011, 01:44:23 AM »

You haven't refuted anything except a concept no one here adheres to.
Logged
TheJackel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Materialist
Posts: 240


« Reply #81 on: February 18, 2011, 03:02:54 AM »

You haven't refuted anything except a concept no one here adheres to.


I have.. learn how to use English. The definitions of words are not going to bend to your ideology lol.. Nothing will remain to be literally nothing. It's irrelevant if you think it adheres to your beliefs or not. It's not going to magically change the definition of nothing. What's even worse is that you people don't even seem to know the what the definition of "incomprehensible" means to understand that your use of it contradicts your entire argument. It's like watching a toss salad of words hit the screen to which have been typed by someone who seems to have nobody mentally home to comprehend what they mean.
Quote
It has already be ascribed to God that he is incomprehensible, so it is unsurprising that one can find apparent contradictions.

This alone is a self-collapsing contradiction lol.. Worse of all, it means you could never conceive, experience, touch, smell, feel, interact with, or even talk to even after your death. Pretty funny when you here the catch phrase "meet your maker". o.O  Well, I can't ever meet nothing because it doesn't exist. Yes I can't comprehend nothing  being something because it doesn't exist!
« Last Edit: February 18, 2011, 03:04:31 AM by TheJackel » Logged
Shiny
Site Supporter
Moderated
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Groucho Marxist
Jurisdiction: Dahntahn Stoop Haus
Posts: 13,267


Paint It Red


« Reply #82 on: February 18, 2011, 03:04:21 AM »

Prove nothing doesn't exist.

I'm getting tired of reading your assertions.
Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

– St. Ambrose of Milan
TheJackel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Materialist
Posts: 240


« Reply #83 on: February 18, 2011, 03:05:05 AM »

Prove nothing doesn't exist.

I'm getting tired of reading your assertions.

Just did. This very post proves nothing doesn't exist.
« Last Edit: February 18, 2011, 03:09:52 AM by TheJackel » Logged
Shiny
Site Supporter
Moderated
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Groucho Marxist
Jurisdiction: Dahntahn Stoop Haus
Posts: 13,267


Paint It Red


« Reply #84 on: February 18, 2011, 03:12:30 AM »

Prove nothing doesn't exist.

I'm getting tired of reading your assertions.

Just did. This very post proves nothing doesn't exist.
How so?
Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

– St. Ambrose of Milan
TheJackel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Materialist
Posts: 240


« Reply #85 on: February 18, 2011, 03:14:46 AM »

Prove nothing doesn't exist.

I'm getting tired of reading your assertions.

Just did. This very post proves nothing doesn't exist.
How so?

if it exists, there can not be nothing by definition. Thus nothing does not exist. It can not be a literal person, place, or thing... It's amazing that information is made of something isn't it Smiley. There is tangible value. Nothing has no value what-so-ever. Your arguments are telling me that your GOD has no literal value. It's as if you would be insulted to know that your GOD would require value beyond just the idea. It makes no logical sense at all.
« Last Edit: February 18, 2011, 03:21:22 AM by TheJackel » Logged
Shiny
Site Supporter
Moderated
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Groucho Marxist
Jurisdiction: Dahntahn Stoop Haus
Posts: 13,267


Paint It Red


« Reply #86 on: February 18, 2011, 03:20:35 AM »

And our belief that God is nothing? Since "if it exists" then it can't be nothing.
Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

– St. Ambrose of Milan
TheJackel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Materialist
Posts: 240


« Reply #87 on: February 18, 2011, 03:25:26 AM »

And our belief that God is nothing? Since "if it exists" then it can't be nothing.

Incorrect. Your belief in a GOD is not the GOD! It's not the object itself. Trying to say the object itself is made of nothing makes your belief nothing more than irrelevance. You can't say the object of your belief is made of nothing. You are killing your own belief, or making it look entirely irrelevant. :/ .. If you require logical fallacies to believe in your GOD, you have issues to deal with.. They aren't required or necessary :/ I've been telling this to fellow Christians for years. You think putting a GOD into realistic limits would magically make it not a GOD to you. If you wanted a more solid base of argument for it's existence, you are going to need to stop assigning it attributes of nothing.  I'm not sure where the stupidity of this kind of argument began in religion, but it's really not helping religious people look at all intelligent :/ So what if it would be bound to the same rules we are.. You could still argue it as First being, or most powerful of all beings and have it still be GOD like and realistically plausible.. The problem with some  religions is that they fantasize too much! To much to the point where they make their ideology just look like nothing but mythical constructs. I never once considered the GOD I believed in as being nothing, or made of nothing, or even outside of existence/capacity. Materialism isn't even what had driven me away from the concept. I don't worship things of power, or anything as GOD. Especially those to have been said to have committed genocide in an act of pure hypocrisy of the 10 commandments. I don't follow leaders that can't lead by example to set a premise for everyone to follow.. It's simply no longer applicable to me on all levels to which includes philosophical levels. I really don't care if it were to exist or not as it's not relevant to me to worship. I even would think that the entity in question would find it rather annoying to have people worship it. I know I would, it would be like a bunch of groupies that never leave you alone "/ .. So it's just not my thing. So I would appreciate it if you stop assuming my position of materialism is the sola cause of my Atheism.



Another Plausible answer would be:

Existence was once one Universe where one Being evolved and became powerful enough to create other Universes within his own Universe.. Since the capacity volume of infinity would allow it, there wouldn't be a logical problem with it. I'm actually trying to help you out here.


« Last Edit: February 18, 2011, 03:57:29 AM by TheJackel » Logged
Shiny
Site Supporter
Moderated
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Groucho Marxist
Jurisdiction: Dahntahn Stoop Haus
Posts: 13,267


Paint It Red


« Reply #88 on: February 18, 2011, 08:10:26 AM »

Incorrect.
Of course it is, this whole post will be incorrect too and the next and the next. I should go ahead and make the argument you are going to make to my post now so you don't have to bother, that's how repetitive and predictable you are.

Quote
Your belief in a GOD is not the GOD! It's not the object itself. Trying to say the object itself is made of nothing makes your belief nothing more than irrelevance.
I did not try to say that the object is made of nothing, please quote me on where I have said this.

Quote
You can't say the object of your belief is made of nothing.
Right.

Quote
You are killing your own belief, or making it look entirely irrelevant. :/
Yet I never claimed God is nothing, or the object itself is nothing. Why are you trying to put words into my mouth? Let's go back to my last question. I asked you that our belief in God is nothing, you hold pretty firmly that we worship nothing. However as you mentioned two posts above, if it exists therefore it cannot be nothing. So if God does exist, then He cannot be nothing.

You are painting a very distorted and false caricature of me.

Quote
If you require logical fallacies to believe in your GOD, you have issues to deal with..
I do not require logical fallacies to believe in God. And no where have I appealed to using logic to appeal to God anywhere. In fact I have actually started engaging with my fellow Christians on the arguments they had against infinite regression.

I don't think you will find anyone on this forum who believes in God by a logical fallacy.

Quote
You think putting a GOD into realistic limits would magically make it not a GOD to you.
There are limitations on our own logic and reason with God. If a god was able to be comprehended it's not a god at all.

Quote
if you wanted a more solid base of argument for it's existence, you are going to need to stop assigning it attributes of nothing.
I have yet assign it one attribute of nothing...

Quote
I'm not sure where the stupidity of this kind of argument began in religion, but it's really not helping religious people look at all intelligent :/ So what if it would be bound to the same rules we are.. You could still argue it as First being, or most powerful of all beings and have it still be GOD like and realistically plausible.. The problem with some  religions is that they fantasize too much!
If a god is bounded by our rules its not a god, by definition.

Fantasize? Can't wait to hear this. Roll Eyes

Quote
To much to the point where they make their ideology just look like nothing but mythical constructs.
Right because Christianity is based on a mythical construct *cough*Christ*cough*.

Quote
I never once considered the GOD I believed in as being nothing, or made of nothing, or even outside of existence/capacity.
So you held God in a Mormon viewpoint.

Quote
Materialism isn't even what had driven me away from the concept. I don't worship things of power, or anything as GOD. Especially those to have been said to have committed genocide in an act of pure hypocrisy of the 10 commandments.
Comitted genocide huh? I'm just curious but what was unjust about killing the wicked and evil doers whom willing chose not to be righteous?

Quote
I don't follow leaders that can't lead by example to set a premise for everyone to follow..
Jesus did.

Quote
It's simply no longer applicable to me on all levels to which includes philosophical levels. I really don't care if it were to exist or not as it's not relevant to me to worship.
So you don't care if God exists or not. And if He did exist what then?

Quote
I even would think that the entity in question would find it rather annoying to have people worship it.
Good thing that's not what God actually "thinks".

Quote
I know I would, it would be like a bunch of groupies that never leave you alone "/ .. So it's just not my thing.
What is the point of all this babble?

Quote
So I would appreciate it if you stop assuming my position of materialism is the sola cause of my Atheism.
I never assumed your position as such.

Quote
Existence was once one Universe where one Being evolved and became powerful enough to create other Universes within his own Universe..
Proof?
Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

– St. Ambrose of Milan
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,418



« Reply #89 on: February 18, 2011, 10:32:21 AM »

The definitions of words are not going to bend to your ideology lol..

Look, the people in the philosophy department, most of whom are irreligious, will positively sneer at that statement. The definitions of words are hammered on constantly to make them match reality. I don't worship a definition: I worship God who has a name.

And while you are picking on my English, you could omit yourself such not-exactly-grammatical statements as

Quote
Nothing will remain to be literally nothing.

...which is rather a "toss salad of words" itself.

Quote
Quote
It has already be ascribed to God that he is incomprehensible, so it is unsurprising that one can find apparent contradictions.

This alone is a self-collapsing contradiction lol..

No, it isn't. And you haven't the slightest hope of proving to me that your claim is true, not because I am a believer, but because your arguments are so sloppy.
Logged
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #90 on: February 18, 2011, 10:57:57 AM »

Quote
But this is true. Logically, the First Cause cannot be within the system of causation or be required to be under its same rules.

Firstly that is incorrect when the cause is the base substance of the entire system..

But the in the case of God, the cause is not the base substance of the entire system, so what are you talking about?
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
CRCulver
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Church of Finland and Romanian Orthodox Church
Posts: 1,159


St Stephen of Perm, missionary to speakers of Komi


WWW
« Reply #91 on: February 18, 2011, 11:08:56 AM »

I have.. learn how to use English. The definitions of words are not going to bend to your ideology lol

For someone who claims to be clued up on philosophy, TheJackel has never read Saussure (the linguistic sign is arbitrary).
Logged
Sleeper
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,256

On hiatus for the foreseeable future.


« Reply #92 on: February 18, 2011, 11:14:39 AM »

Jackel, in all your posts I still have no clue what you're talking about. Why is it so hard to understand that a non-material entity does not require the rules of material entities to justify its existence? The only thing you do as ramble about "nothing" followed by childish lol's.

I get that you take materialism for granted but you have in no way shown that to be the most reasonable default position, and yet you refuse to work under any other frame of reference. It's tiresome.
Logged
bogdan
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,615



« Reply #93 on: February 18, 2011, 11:15:09 PM »

The more he throws around "logical fallacy", the more I think he Wiki'd the term last week, got the gist of it, and is going wild with it.

Or: You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
« Last Edit: February 18, 2011, 11:15:41 PM by bogdan » Logged
Shiny
Site Supporter
Moderated
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Groucho Marxist
Jurisdiction: Dahntahn Stoop Haus
Posts: 13,267


Paint It Red


« Reply #94 on: February 18, 2011, 11:46:11 PM »

Jackel, in all your posts I still have no clue what you're talking about. Why is it so hard to understand that a non-material entity does not require the rules of material entities to justify its existence? The only thing you do as ramble about "nothing" followed by childish lol's.

I get that you take materialism for granted but you have in no way shown that to be the most reasonable default position, and yet you refuse to work under any other frame of reference. It's tiresome.

Like I said to synthesize his "argumentation" thus far on this board is as follows: "LOL! Incorrect! LOL! Incorrect! A bunch of psuedo-intellectual babble that tries to be so convoluted in order to stump the opposition and freely throwing out links with no quotations from any of these sources."

There was a post here made by Dart against TtC, but I think it's fitting for this discussion:

"It is like he is building this huge Rube Goldberg machine of reason and logic to try and explain God's love, God's creation, and God's energies warming his heart like the sun shining on a beach.  As we lay on the beach enjoying the rays of God's love, he is running around trying to build a wall of sand to keep the ocean tide away. We just can't help to laugh as he tries to use his little shovel so desperately

God's creation is so wonderful that he makes many things for us to laugh, enjoy, and marvel at. It really is not that hard to let God love you. The hard part is loving back and realizing how little we have to offer in return.

Keep digging! You'll find God no matter where you look. He is everywhere."
Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

– St. Ambrose of Milan
TheJackel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Materialist
Posts: 240


« Reply #95 on: February 19, 2011, 06:34:22 AM »

Quote
Jackel, in all your posts I still have no clue what you're talking about.

If you had a basic education in English you would know. Wink

Insinuating that one has not received a basic education in English is by definition an ad hominem in that it goes to the person and not to his arguments. We don't permit such personal attacks here. Considering your recent history of such disrespect for proper decorum on this forum, you are now on Post Moderation for the next 3 weeks. During this time every one of your posts must be screened by a moderator before it will appear on the forum. If during or after this time on Post Moderation you continue to post such personal insults of our posters you will be muted or even banned from this site. Please feel free to appeal my warning via private message to Fr. George if you think it unfair.

- PeterTheAleut
« Last Edit: February 23, 2011, 01:54:06 AM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
TheJackel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Materialist
Posts: 240


« Reply #96 on: February 19, 2011, 06:36:00 AM »

Quote
"It is like he is building this huge Rube Goldberg machine of reason and logic to try and explain God's love, God's creation, and God's energies warming his heart like the sun shining on a beach.  As we lay on the beach enjoying the rays of God's love, he is running around trying to build a wall of sand to keep the ocean tide away. We just can't help to laugh as he tries to use his little shovel so desperately

I don't deny that the Sun exists, nor do I proclaim it to be made of nothing Wink And I bask in the sun all the time to warm my heart with it's life giving love Smiley And yep, the Sun surely is responsible for the creation of the heavier elements to which have given rise to the possibility of life. Not sure what wall I have been building to keep the Sunlight out of my life O.o .. Perhaps I'm the only one with the open blinds?

Funny watching Christians worship the Sun while they have no clue as to the fact that they are. lol
« Last Edit: February 19, 2011, 06:40:55 AM by TheJackel » Logged
Shiny
Site Supporter
Moderated
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Groucho Marxist
Jurisdiction: Dahntahn Stoop Haus
Posts: 13,267


Paint It Red


« Reply #97 on: February 21, 2011, 02:49:13 AM »

Oh...wow. You do realize that quote is just using the rays of the sun as a figure of speech for the energies of God? If I said "I have butterflies in my stomach" you would probably take it literally.

/facepalm
Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

– St. Ambrose of Milan
TheJackel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Materialist
Posts: 240


« Reply #98 on: February 21, 2011, 04:21:28 AM »

Oh...wow. You do realize that quote is just using the rays of the sun as a figure of speech for the energies of God? If I said "I have butterflies in my stomach" you would probably take it literally.

/facepalm

Actually I did know.. But I was equating your religion to that of the worshiping of a sun GOD.. Wink Even your sites banner displays that kind of symbolism quite nicely Smiley
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,192


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #99 on: February 21, 2011, 11:28:08 AM »

Oh...wow. You do realize that quote is just using the rays of the sun as a figure of speech for the energies of God? If I said "I have butterflies in my stomach" you would probably take it literally.

/facepalm

Actually I did know.. But I was equating your religion to that of the worshiping of a sun GOD.. Wink Even your sites banner displays that kind of symbolism quite nicely Smiley
I am embarrassed for you.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
admiralnick
Cardinal, Editor for Photogalleries
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,880


« Reply #100 on: February 21, 2011, 12:15:45 PM »

So Jackel, what would you say to this:


My mind, body, and soul have a need for God, therefore God must exist.


-Nick
Logged

The ORIGINAL: "NULL"
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,192


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #101 on: February 21, 2011, 12:54:20 PM »

So Jackel, what would you say to this:


My mind, body, and soul have a need for God, therefore God must exist.


-Nick
I really like this argument. It's fleshed out here: http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics/desire.htm
But I doubt that Jackal will accet such an existential argument, though it's actually one of my favorites. I highly encourage Jackal to read the artical above, and seriously consider all of it's implications before he simply just states, "lol. Stupid argument. LOL"
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
TheJackel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Materialist
Posts: 240


« Reply #102 on: February 21, 2011, 01:08:07 PM »

So Jackel, what would you say to this:


My mind, body, and soul have a need for God, therefore God must exist.


-Nick

Please validate that a Mind, Body, and soul would require a GOD to exist. Sorry, but your own existence and your own philosophy about mind and body is only evidence of your own existence. And you do realize there is more than one spirituality belief in this world that doesn't encompass a magical deity correct? Even Atheists can be spiritual.. Your assumptions that a god must exist is incorrect. Existence would exist with or without one because a GOD is irrelevant to it. It is not existence that requires a GOD but your supposed Deity that would require it in order to exist. Thus I can play that game to and just say that no GOD exists.

Quote
I am embarrassed for you.

Right back at ya... Adults with imaginary friends is silly.

  
« Last Edit: February 21, 2011, 01:11:54 PM by TheJackel » Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,192


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #103 on: February 21, 2011, 01:13:51 PM »


Quote
I am embarrassed for you.

Right back at ya... Adults with imaginary friends is silly.

  
Actually, the reason that I am embarrassed for you is that you accept the magically philosophy of materialism. Your fairies and dwarfs (matter only) perform all kinds of magical tricks like bringing something from nothing, creating more from less, and forming order from disorder.
« Last Edit: February 21, 2011, 01:14:08 PM by Papist » Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Shiny
Site Supporter
Moderated
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Groucho Marxist
Jurisdiction: Dahntahn Stoop Haus
Posts: 13,267


Paint It Red


« Reply #104 on: February 21, 2011, 01:16:18 PM »

So Jackel, what would you say to this:


My mind, body, and soul have a need for God, therefore God must exist.


-Nick

Please validate that a Mind, Body, and soul would require a GOD to exist.

Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh he didn't say require but had a need for God.
Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

– St. Ambrose of Milan
admiralnick
Cardinal, Editor for Photogalleries
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,880


« Reply #105 on: February 21, 2011, 02:31:58 PM »

So Jackel, what would you say to this:


My mind, body, and soul have a need for God, therefore God must exist.


-Nick

Please validate that a Mind, Body, and soul would require a GOD to exist.

Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh he didn't say require but had a need for God.

Right on, I didn't say that my mind, body, and soul require a God, I said they have a need for it. The words were purposefully chosen. If you want to argue syntax, then:

My mind, body, and soul have a longing for God, therefore, God must exist.

-Nick
Logged

The ORIGINAL: "NULL"
Tzimis
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: 2,374



« Reply #106 on: February 21, 2011, 03:15:37 PM »

So Jackel, what would you say to this:


My mind, body, and soul have a need for God, therefore God must exist.


-Nick

Please validate that a Mind, Body, and soul would require a GOD to exist. Sorry, but your own existence and your own philosophy about mind and body is only evidence of your own existence. And you do realize there is more than one spirituality belief in this world that doesn't encompass a magical deity correct? Even Atheists can be spiritual.. Your assumptions that a god must exist is incorrect. Existence would exist with or without one because a GOD is irrelevant to it. It is not existence that requires a GOD but your supposed Deity that would require it in order to exist. Thus I can play that game to and just say that no GOD exists.


  

That's "Mathematical singularity" for you..  The point at which math breaks down.  There is a good argument for both and in the end is just a guess. But someone must be right. Right?
Logged

Excellence of character, then, is a state concerned with choice, lying in a mean relative to us, this being determined by reason and in the way in which the man of practical wisdom would determine it. Now it is a mean between two vices, that which depends on excess and that which depends on defect.
Shiny
Site Supporter
Moderated
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Groucho Marxist
Jurisdiction: Dahntahn Stoop Haus
Posts: 13,267


Paint It Red


« Reply #107 on: February 21, 2011, 03:30:11 PM »

Hey Jackel, I know this is going to be an obvious answer from you but I don't like to construct straw men. You don't believe in an after life, correct? May I ask what is wrong with believing in life after death?
Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

– St. Ambrose of Milan
TheJackel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Materialist
Posts: 240


« Reply #108 on: February 23, 2011, 02:14:23 PM »

Hey Jackel, I know this is going to be an obvious answer from you but I don't like to construct straw men. You don't believe in an after life, correct? May I ask what is wrong with believing in life after death?

Actually I do believe in the possibility of the after life.. I just know it won't be made of nothing, or not be bound to the same principle rules of information theory. I'm not even arguing for the non-existence of a GOD. I am only arguing the fallacies surrounding such concepts to which are impossible and self-collapsing :/
Logged
TheJackel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Materialist
Posts: 240


« Reply #109 on: February 23, 2011, 02:15:06 PM »

Hey Jackel, I know this is going to be an obvious answer from you but I don't like to construct straw men. You don't believe in an after life, correct? May I ask what is wrong with believing in life after death?

Actually I do believe in the possibility of the after life.. I just know it won't be made of nothing, or not be bound to the same principle rules of information theory. I'm not even arguing for the non-existence of an entity to which could be called a GOD. I am only arguing the fallacies surrounding such concepts to which are impossible and self-collapsing :/ Or that one really isn't required to where there can be an untold number of plausible possibilities without having to cling to fallacies. Smiley
Logged
Tags:
Pages: 1 2 3 All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.386 seconds with 137 queries.