Flat out denial.

[True Scotsman]

Can you explain what you mean by "metaphysical primacy"? There are too many confusing definitions out there.

Also, can you back your if/then statement with an explanation of the process you arrived at the "then" part.

One more thing. Can you explain your statement that "existence has metaphysical primacy over consciousness" and how you back this claim?

Otherwise, I just see an "if"/"then" statement and a conclusion with nothing to base it on.

Yes,

My if/then statement is backed up by the law of non-contradiction.

Metaphysical primacy has specifically to do with the relationship between existence and consciousness. Very briefly because I am working, the primacy of existence principle states that the things that exist do so independently of anyone's conscious activity. Its opposite, the primacy of consciousness, states that the things that exist do not exist independently of anyone's consciousness and are dependent on consciousness for their existence. The POE is the objective orientation of this relationship and the POC is the subjective orientation. That existence has primacy is undeniable because its truth is axiomatic, i.e., it would have to be true before anyone could attempt to deny it.

Premise 1 of my argument is true because a contradiction can't exist. Existence can not both have primacy and not have primacy at the same time. Premise two is true because it would have to be true even to deny it. Therefor the conclusion is true. Colter's refusal to address the argument is a dead giveaway that he knows it is an unsolvable problem for his worldview so instead he make the issue about me personally. I'm simply defending myself against his allegations of dishonesty(may I say quite handily).

 

[True Scotsman]

If you aren't familiar with the basis for these mental gymnastics:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayn_Rand#Philosophy

Once again my argument has nothing to do with Ayn Rand. It is a very simple argument with two premises and neither one draws on Ayn Rand as an authority. But by all means keep avoiding the argument. You're only harming yourself.

 

[True Scotsman]

That's all you have Scotsman, arrogance and insults. When your fallacy is exposed you get angry. And I would take the faith and wonderment of the children at the children's table rather than the ranting's of a foolish adult.

What fallacy is that? I don't see at all where you have pointed out any logical errors in my argument. Disagreeing with Colter is not a logical fallacy.

 

[bhsmte]

And that is your belief.

Yes, based on human psychology.

 

[bhsmte]

But the interpretation of that evidence is not.

Sure, by the objective evidence and facts stays the same.

 

[Colter]

Yes,

My if/then statement is backed up by the law of non-contradiction.

Metaphysical primacy has specifically to do with the relationship between existence and consciousness. Very briefly because I am working, the primacy of existence principle states that the things that exist do so independently of anyone's conscious activity. Its opposite, the primacy of consciousness, states that the things that exist do not exist independently of anyone's consciousness and are dependent on consciousness for their existence. The POE is the objective orientation of this relationship and the POC is the subjective orientation. That existence has primacy is undeniable because its truth is axiomatic, i.e., it would have to be true before anyone could attempt to deny it.

Premise 1 of my argument is true because a contradiction can't exist. Existence can not both have primacy and not have primacy at the same time. Premise two is true because it would have to be true even to deny it. Therefor the conclusion is true. Colter's refusal to address the argument is a dead giveaway that he knows it is an unsolvable problem for his worldview so instead he make the issue about me personally. I'm simply defending myself against his allegations of dishonesty(may I say quite handily).

"Universe causes cannot be lower than universe effects. The source of the streams of universe life and of the cosmic mind must be above the levels of their manifestation. The human mind cannot be consistently explained in terms of the lower orders of existence. Man’s mind can be truly comprehended only by recognizing the reality of higher orders of thought and purposive will. Man as a moral being is inexplicable unless the reality of the Universal Father is acknowledged." UB

 

[True Scotsman]

"Universe causes cannot be lower than universe effects. The source of the streams of universe life and of the cosmic mind must be above the levels of their manifestation. The human mind cannot be consistently explained in terms of the lower orders of existence. Man’s mind can be truly comprehended only by recognizing the reality of higher orders of thought and purposive will. Man as a moral being is inexplicable unless the reality of the Universal Father is acknowledged." UB

Prove it!!!

 

[TillICollapse]

Disagreeing with Colter is not a logical fallacy.

 

[JacksBratt]

Yes,

My if/then statement is backed up by the law of non-contradiction.

Metaphysical primacy has specifically to do with the relationship between existence and consciousness. Very briefly because I am working, the primacy of existence principle states that the things that exist do so independently of anyone's conscious activity. Its opposite, the primacy of consciousness, states that the things that exist do not exist independently of anyone's consciousness and are dependent on consciousness for their existence.

Ok, a little patience with the verbally challenged here.

You are saying,"the primacy of existence" states that something can exist independent of us being aware of it's existence? While "the Primacy of consciousness" states that we have to be conscious of something for it to exist.

The POE is the objective orientation of this relationship and the POC is the subjective orientation.

Ok, so one statement is objective and one is subjective....

That existence has primacy is undeniable

Now, in your opinion, it is a fact that something can exist without us being conscious of it. Right? It's undeniable.

because its truth is axiomatic, i.e., it would have to be true before anyone could attempt to deny it.

Because.... truth is unquestionable....axiomatic means unquestionable... who knew....
And, since truth is unquestionable, something must be true before you can deny it's existence or truth...???

I don't get the "IF" things can exist without us being conscious of them, "THEN" something must be true before it can be denied.

Stay with me here...

So if something can exist without us knowing, then how can we know everything?

If we cannot know everything (things can exist without us being conscious of them) we cannot know all truth.
Therefore, we cannot question the unknown as it may contain truth we are not conscious of and that unknown truth would be unquestionable.

Premise 1 of my argument is true because a contradiction can't exist. Existence can not both have primacy and not have primacy at the same time. Premise two is true because it would have to be true even to deny it. Therefor the conclusion is true. Colter's refusal to address the argument is a dead giveaway that he knows it is an unsolvable problem for his worldview so instead he make the issue about me personally. I'm simply defending myself against his allegations of dishonesty(may I say quite handily).

If a contradiction cannot exist, then God can exist because He can exist without us being conscious of Him.

 

[Colter]

Prove it!!!

This is what I have been suspecting, this whole charade is the illustration of a dogma that circles the wagons around an ego that disallows any reasoning, the vary same accusation that Atheist accuse the religious of. It claims its own presumption as an authority.

 

[Colter]

Ok, a little patience with the verbally challenged here.

You are saying,"the primacy of existence" states that something can exist independent of us being aware of it's existence? While "the Primacy of consciousness" states that we have to be conscious of something for it to exist.



Ok, so one statement is objective and one is subjective....



Now, in your opinion, it is a fact that something can exist without us being conscious of it. Right? It's undeniable.



Because.... truth is unquestionable....axiomatic means unquestionable... who knew....
And, since truth is unquestionable, something must be true before you can deny it's existence or truth...???

I don't get the "IF" things can exist without us being conscious of them, "THEN" something must be true before it can be denied.

Stay with me here...

So if something can exist without us knowing, then how can we know everything?

If we cannot know everything (things can exist without us being conscious of them) we cannot know all truth.
Therefore, we cannot question the unknown as it may contain truth we are not conscious of and that unknown truth would be unquestionable.




If a contradiction cannot exist, then God can exist because He can exist without us being conscious of Him.

It's two straw men in a cage fight, one is declared the winner just because.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

that is a lie.... it can be and is seduced out of people very easily . just make them want something else NOW and promise them a way to get it Now. and watch them do a 180.

I said education, not seduction. There's nothing 'tempting' about the ToE.

 

[Armoured]

Objective evidence and facts are independent of anyone's subjective thoughts and exists and is there whether someone acknowledges it or not. Whether a person accepts the evidence or not is a different story.

If there is a crime scene and DNA of the suspect is found at the scene, this evidence is objective and is not subjective.

Evidence is objective. How the evidence is interpreted is subjective.

 

[True Scotsman]

Ok, a little patience with the verbally challenged here.

You are saying,"the primacy of existence" states that something can exist independent of us being aware of it's existence? While "the Primacy of consciousness" states that we have to be conscious of something for it to exist.



Ok, so one statement is objective and one is subjective....



Now, in your opinion, it is a fact that something can exist without us being conscious of it. Right? It's undeniable.



Because.... truth is unquestionable....axiomatic means unquestionable... who knew....
And, since truth is unquestionable, something must be true before you can deny it's existence or truth...???

I don't get the "IF" things can exist without us being conscious of them, "THEN" something must be true before it can be denied.

Stay with me here...

So if something can exist without us knowing, then how can we know everything?

If we cannot know everything (things can exist without us being conscious of them) we cannot know all truth.
Therefore, we cannot question the unknown as it may contain truth we are not conscious of and that unknown truth would be unquestionable.




If a contradiction cannot exist, then God can exist because He can exist without us being conscious of Him.

Lots of errors here. I'm really pressed for time so I'll give you a link here that will explain the principle. It's by Dawson Bethrick who has written extensively on the subject. until I have time to answer your questions this should give you good grounding in the principle.

Katholon.com/Poe.htm

 

[True Scotsman]

This is what I have been suspecting, this whole charade is the illustration of a dogma that circles the wagons around an ego that disallows any reasoning, the vary same accusation that Atheist accuse the religious of. It claims its own presumption as an authority.

What charade? I'm simply asking you to prove your assertions. imagine that! Simply amazing! Meanwhile my argument stands untouched. Just mind boggling. Disallows any reasoning?! Iv'e practically been begging for you to present some.

 

[Colter]

The eternal isle of paradise has always existed, it is the patern for the material cration(s) and the source of the conscious personalities that inhabits the creation. God the absolute is conscious of his existance in eternity.

 

[Colter]

What charade? I'm simply asking you to prove your assertions. imagine that! Simply amazing! Meanwhile my argument stands untouched. Just mind boggling. Disallows any reasoning?! Iv'e practically been begging for you to present some.

I have presented reasoning, but you cop out and hide in the box of the charade of the presumptive primacy of existance. In other words, your inflexible dogma is intolerant of reasoning so it promotes that as proof of the non existance of first cause. The consequence is the dubious axiom that effects are what they are without cause.

 

[True Scotsman]

I have presented reasoning, but you cop out and hide in the box of the charade of the presumptive primacy of existance. In other words, your inflexible dogma is intolerant of reasoning so it promotes that as proof of the non existance of first cause. The consequence is the dubious axiom that effects are what they are without cause.

You have provided nothing but assertions and quoted from the Urania book. I have provided a rock solid, valid and sound argument which by the way also proves that the Uranti book is a fraud. Now show that my argument commits a fallacy or that any one of the premises are false. If you can't do it then you owe me an apology.

 

[durangodawood]

If you place your personal theological commitment above all else, then facts "on the ground" are always suspect.

 

[riona]

My personal response to the OP:
As a Christian, my belief is fundamentally based on one truth- the truth spoke in the bible. And in that truth, God is infallible.
The issue I take with some science is that it argues that truth.
My belief in God is simply stronger than belief in a scientific theory.
So even when presented with your 'ridiculously obvious' "absolutes", if they contradict what the bible teaches, I simply can't believe them.
Unfortunately, most of the hot topics (dinosaurs, age of the earth) are completely ignored by the bible, which makes it even harder to follow the science, since the popular scientific belief contradicts my Christian belief of what the bible teaches. And some (evolution) are blatantly contradictory to what the bible teaches.

I get that it's hard to understand faith.
How did a man come from dirt?
How could God just have always been? How does he have no beginning?
How did He just blink the earth and sun out of nothingness?
It's pretty amazing to think about... as a child I remember having a hard time wrapping my head around the "God has always been" one. But then, I just had faith. I don't understand and it's not for me TO understand. I just have to have faith that it's true, even without proof.