God Is a Physical Being

[JAL]

Again I'm sorry that you find logic insulting. My point is that you have not provided any valid arguments yourself. Which you have not been able to refute.

Again, you're trying to shift the burden of proof onto me. And yet.
(1) You haven't refuted my position. You've even ignored my proofs.
(2) You haven't provided any proofs establishing YOUR position.

All you've done is hurl insults.

 

[topher694]

Again, you're trying to shift the burden of proof onto me. And yet.
(1) You haven't refuted my position. You've even ignored my proofs.
(2) You haven't provided any proofs establishing YOUR position.

All you've done is hurl insults.

The burden of proof IS ON YOU. That's how textbook proof works.

Burden Of Proof Fallacy: Who Has The Burden of Proof and Why? - Fallacy In Logic

look at the section: Who Has the Burden of Proof.
This is consistent with all textbooks on the subject

I have already proved my position. It's just not what you what to hear. I'll make it plain:
My position is that your arguments are invalid and therefore your conclusions are irrelevant.
I proved this in post 537
It is not possible to argue logically with invalid arguments.

Ironically, the fact that you keep ignoring my points and instead accusing me of hurling insults is another logical fallacy that you keep accusing others of: Ad Hominem. It is projecting your poor behavior onto others as a form of deflection. No on here is buying what you are saying or doing.

 

[JAL]

The burden of proof IS ON YOU. That's how textbook proof works.

Burden Of Proof Fallacy: Who Has The Burden of Proof and Why? - Fallacy In Logic

look at the section: Who Has the Burden of Proof.
This is consistent with all textbooks on the subject

I have already proved my position. It's just not what you what to hear. I'll make it plain:
My position is that your arguments are invalid and therefore your conclusions are irrelevant.
I proved this in post 537
It is not possible to argue logically with invalid arguments.

Ironically, the fact that you keep ignoring my points and instead accusing me of hurling insults is another logical fallacy that you keep accusing others of: Ad Hominem. It is projecting your poor behavior onto others as a form of deflection. No on here is buying what you are saying or doing.

You're not making any sense. If a yoga instructor says to me:
"Make use of the The Force that pervades all things"
The burden of proof falls all upon me? That's your position?

Sorry the burden of proof falls on those people, such as yoga instructors and religious people, who make extraordinary claims. Not sure why you can't seem to grasp that fact.

 

[topher694]

You're not making any sense. If a yoga instructor says to me:
"Make use of the The Force that pervades all things"
The burden of proof falls all upon me? That's your position?

Sorry the burden of proof falls on those people, such as yoga instructors and religious people, who make extraordinary claims. Not sure why you can't seem to grasp that fact.

lol, that is not what is happening here. That is just plain dishonest. YOU started the thread that God is physical, not the those who believe He is Spirit, so the burden falls on you. You made the claim in this thread. The fact that others make differing claims is not relevant to your obligation.

Here is a more accurate way of stating it
JAL: "There is no Force that prevails all things"
JAL: "Some yoga instructors say, 'Make use of the Force that pervades all things'"
JAL: "Yoga instructors, prove me wrong"
Yoga Instructors: ....... huh?
JAL: "See, I'm right!"

Now that is an overarching logical fallacy with many other logical fallacies mixed with countless invalid arguments.

 

[JAL]

YOU started the thread that God is physical...

Um..er...eh...uh...No. This debate was started about 2,000 years ago when theologians began making the extraordinary claim that God, angels, and human minds are all magical immaterial substances and, in rebuttal, the church father Tertullian claimed that all things including God are material. The burden of proof still remains on them.

 

[JAL]

The burden of proof IS ON YOU. That's how textbook proof works.

Burden Of Proof Fallacy: Who Has The Burden of Proof and Why? - Fallacy In Logic

look at the section: Who Has the Burden of Proof.
This is consistent with all textbooks on the subject

Oh the irony. I just took a look at that article in your link. To establish its thesis, it provides three examples. The first two involve extraordinary claims. (1) Ghosts. (2) Santa Claus. In both cases, the article concludes that the burden of proof falls on the person making the extraordinary claim.

 

[JAL]

My position is that your arguments are invalid.

You say this without demonstration. That is a logical fallacy known as hand-waving. How ironic that, in all your allegations of logical fallacy, you conveniently overlook this one.

 

[topher694]

You say this without demonstration. That is a logical fallacy known as hand-waving. How ironic that, in all your allegations of logical fallacy, you conveniently overlook this one.

Demonstration was in post 537, which has now been mentioned and conveniently ignored 3 times. So who is the hand-waver now?

 

[JAL]

Demonstration was in post 537, which has now been mentioned and conveniently ignored 3 times.

For the third time, that wasn't one of my proofs. Also, I didn't ignore that post.

So who is the hand-waver now?

Quite obviously, you are.

 

[JAL]

I did respond to post 537 - but maybe this is the part that merits more attention in your view?

However if a tennis ball spontaneously turned into a shoe that would be pretty extraordinary, yet all of the elements involved are material. There we just demonstrated that your argument is invalid.

What argument is invalid? You seem to be putting words in my mouth, formulating a strawman assertion to which I never acquiesced, specifically you read me as asserting: Any claim regarding matter is an ordinary claim.

I made no such assertion, in fact I strongly oppose it. Consider for example the claim, 'Matter can be created and destroyed'. That's a claim involving matter, but it's certainly not an ordinary claim - clearly it's an extraordinary claim. And like all extraordinary claims, I reject it out of hand because the burden of proof hasn't been met.

K?

 

[topher694]

I did respond to post 537 - but maybe this is the part that merits more attention in your view?

What argument is invalid? You seem to be putting words in my mouth, formulating a strawman assertion to which I never acquiesced, specifically you read me as asserting: Any claim regarding matter is an ordinary claim.

I made no such assertion, in fact I strongly oppose it. Consider for example the claim, 'Matter can be created and destroyed'. That's a claim involving matter, but it's certainly not an ordinary claim - clearly it's an extraordinary claim. And like all extraordinary claims, I reject it out of hand because the burden of proof hasn't been met.

K?

There is no burden of proof on materialists because the existence of material object is not an extraordinary claim.

This is a false premise.
This is also an invalid argument.
Extraordinary is subjective and thus an opinion and in itself would make a argument invalid.

I have demonstrated this several times. Each time you choose a small sliver of my post to respond to and ignore the portions that deal with actual logic science and claim all I am doing is insulting you.

So again, this is another way of describing what you have done:

JAL: (arbitrarily makes up his own rules of logic for his argument)
JAL: (presents an invalid argument using invalid rules of logic)
Everyone Else (EE): (Responds using actual rules of logic and valid arguments)
JAL: Fool! I already addressed that! Your post is meaningless. [Insert random ridicule]
EE: No. That's not true. (Responds with more actual logic)
JAL: (More long rambling invalid arguments logical fallacies)
EE: (Eventually leaves because they realize this is a waste of time)
JAL: VICTORY! No one can refute my proofs!

 

[JAL]

JAL: (arbitrarily makes up his own rules of logic for his argument)
JAL: (presents an invalid argument using invalid rules of logic)
Everyone Else (EE): (Responds using actual rules of logic and valid arguments)
JAL: Fool! I already addressed that! Your post is meaningless. [Insert random ridicule]
EE: No. That's not true. (Responds with more actual logic)
JAL: (More long rambling invalid arguments logical fallacies)
EE: (Eventually leaves because they realize this is a waste of time)
JAL: VICTORY! No one can refute my proofs!

Why do you waste so many words on empty rhetoric? Who do you think you're fooling?

This is a false premise. This is also an invalid argument.

The existence of the material world is a lie? And an invalid argument? Wow. Genius. I guess every mainstream theologian was wrong about it, then. Look, I'm mostly addressing mainstream views. If you don't believe in the material world, state your position and I will briefly address it.

Extraordinary is subjective and thus an opinion and in itself would make a argument invalid.

It's all about consistency. If the two parties debating are in agreement that a particular claim is extraordinary, it affects the burden of proof. When I give you examples of such claims, such as I did at post 558, you just aren't honest enough to admit that they are extraordinary. Ironically the article you linked me to placed the burden of proof on two extraordinary claims:
(1) Ghosts.
(2) Santa Claus
It even said that Santa Claus violates common knowledge and thus requires proof - clearly it's an extraordinary claim. What is common knowledge? It would certainly include ordinary facts of life like, 'People need to stay hydrated' - ordinary claims.

I'm sorry your own article disproves your position.

I have demonstrated this several times.

No what you've done is levy insults, polemics, ad hominem, empty rhetoric, and none of it makes sense. The brunt of it was against the one word "extraordinary" while ignoring my actual proofs for materialism.

 

[JAL]

JAL: VICTORY! No one can refute my proofs!

One of your favorite tactics is to hold me to an impossible standard of 'proof' - a standard that you certainly don't hold yourself to. I can't prove anything 100% and therefore have no such aspirations. I merely seek to demonstrate that my position is more cogent and biblically supported than the alternatives. Such are my 'proofs'.

I'm not sure if you've finally started reading some of my proofs on this thread - but I'm guessing that many of your insults were levied before reading them. In any case, you haven't discussed any of them, so why don't we do so now? Let's discuss just one of them. Fair enough?

Notice the references to the divine Light emanating from the radiant face of Christ:

"The Israelites could not look steadily at the face of Moses because of its glory...For God, who said, “Let light shine out of darkness,” a made his light shine in our hearts to give us the light of the knowledge of God’s glory displayed in the [radiant] face of Christ." (2 Cor 3,4).

"His face was like the sun shining in all its brilliance" (Rev 1:16).

"The city does not need the sun or the moon to shine on it, for the glory of God gives it light, and the Lamb is its lamp" (Rev 21).

"There shall be no night there; and they need no candle, neither light of the sun; for the Lord God giveth them light" (Rev 22).

"The LORD make His face shine upon you" (Num 6).


Ok, is this material light? When Moses came down from the mountain, his face was too bright for Israel's eyeballs. He managed to use a material veil to shade his face on their behalf. And it was successful! A material veil can only restrain material light (obviously an immaterial light, if such were a valid concept, would pass right through a material veil).

 

[topher694]

One of your favorite tactics is to hold me to an impossible standard of 'proof' - a standard that you certainly don't hold yourself to. I can't prove anything 100% and therefore have no such aspirations. I merely seek to demonstrate that my position is more cogent and biblically supported than the alternatives. Such are my 'proofs'.

I'm not sure if you've finally started reading some of my proofs on this thread - but I'm guessing that many of your insults were levied before reading them. In any case, you haven't discussed any of them, so why don't we do so now? Let's discuss just one of them. Fair enough?

Notice the references to the divine Light emanating from the radiant face of Christ:

"The Israelites could not look steadily at the face of Moses because of its glory...For God, who said, “Let light shine out of darkness,” a made his light shine in our hearts to give us the light of the knowledge of God’s glory displayed in the [radiant] face of Christ." (2 Cor 3,4).

"His face was like the sun shining in all its brilliance" (Rev 1:16).

"The city does not need the sun or the moon to shine on it, for the glory of God gives it light, and the Lamb is its lamp" (Rev 21).

"There shall be no night there; and they need no candle, neither light of the sun; for the Lord God giveth them light" (Rev 22).

"The LORD make His face shine upon you" (Num 6).


Ok, is this material light? When Moses came down from the mountain, his face was too bright for Israel's eyeballs. He managed to use a material veil to shade his face on their behalf. And it was successful! A material veil can only restrain material light (obviously an immaterial light, if such were a valid concept, would pass right through a material veil).

I am not holding you to an impossible standard I am holding you to the universally accepted scientific standard that much of our "material" things today run on, including the computer/cell phone you are using right now. You are the one who kept using the term "proof", now you are complaining about it?

As I have stated many times: If the foundation of your argument is logically invalid, then the conclusions don't matter, because it makes the conclusions completely arbitrary and without substance.

as to your scriptures, what I said above still holds true, yet I'll answer your scripture with a scripture and your question with a question:

Matt 13:13-17
-------------------
13 Therefore I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand. 14 And in them the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled, which says:

‘Hearing you will hear and shall not understand,
And seeing you will see and not perceive;
15 For the hearts of this people have grown dull.
Their ears are hard of hearing,
And their eyes they have closed,
Lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears,
Lest they should understand with their hearts and turn,
So that I should heal them.’

16 But blessed are your eyes for they see, and your ears for they hear; 17 for assuredly, I say to you that many prophets and righteous men desired to see what you see, and did not see it, and to hear what you hear, and did not hear it.
-------------------
So, are Jesus & Isaiah talking about seeing natural things with "material" light using their natural eyes? Are they talking about "material" sound waves hitting a material ear drum and creating sound?

 

[JAL]

I am not holding you to an impossible standard I am holding you to the universally accepted scientific standard that much of our "material" things today run on, including the computer/cell phone you are using right now. You are the one who kept using the term "proof", now you are complaining about it?

Endless rhetoric. Since when does clarification count as a complaint?

As I have stated many times: If the foundation of your argument is logically invalid, then the conclusions don't matter, because it makes the conclusions completely arbitrary and without substance.

as to your scriptures, what I said above still holds true, yet I'll answer your scripture with a scripture and your question with a question:

Matt 13:13-17
-------------------
13 Therefore I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand. 14 And in them the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled, which says:

‘Hearing you will hear and shall not understand,
And seeing you will see and not perceive;
15 For the hearts of this people have grown dull.
Their ears are hard of hearing,
And their eyes they have closed,
Lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears,
Lest they should understand with their hearts and turn,
So that I should heal them.’

16 But blessed are your eyes for they see, and your ears for they hear; 17 for assuredly, I say to you that many prophets and righteous men desired to see what you see, and did not see it, and to hear what you hear, and did not hear it.
-------------------
So, are Jesus & Isaiah talking about seeing natural things with "material" light using their natural eyes? Are they talking about "material" sound waves hitting a material ear drum and creating sound?

First of all, wrong methodology. I showed you a literal passage that screams material Light. You should have done two things.
(1) Shown my argument invalid (i.e. address the material veil on Moses' face).
(2) Show me some passages that establish 'magical immaterial substance'.

You did neither. Instead, you point me to a passage that you think is non-literal. Relevance? Do the non-literal passages negate the literal ones? Do they establish immaterialism?

So, are Jesus & Isaiah talking about seeing natural things with "material" light using their natural eyes?

How about the Transfiguration? (Another literal text). Would that help? When Peter's sleepy eyes drooped shut, he lost sight of the vision! In effect, his own material eyelids blocked the Light from vision! (Same principle as the veil over Moses' face). Incidentally the greek word used for Transfiguration is the same one applied to the whole church, in that same passage I cited earlier about God's Light:

"The Israelites could not look steadily at the face of Moses because of its glory...We who with unveiled faces contemplate the glory of the Lord, are [transfigured] into His image....For God, who said, “Let light shine out of darkness,” a made his light shine in our hearts to give us the light of the knowledge of God’s glory displayed in the [radiant] face of Christ." (2 Cor 3,4).

You don't think it's literal? Why then was Stephen's face radiant for all his onlookers to see? How do you suppose He looked up into heaven and saw God? Divine Light creates visions in the eyeballs! (If you've ever been to a movie theater, the dynamics should be plain to you).

How about Paul? He saw Christ on the road to Damascus by virtue of the divine Light that he said was bright like the sun. How do I know it was a material Light? Because it seared his eyeballs like a laser, blinding him until he was miraculously healed, at which point physical scales fell from his eyes. Here again the passage screams materialism.

Is God limited to the eyeballs for visions? Not at all. Ultimately the Light in our eyeballs passes material impulses to the brain, so His Light can bypass the eyeballs and go straight to the brain, for example if He wants to show us a vision in our sleep. But it's still materialism. What we CANNOT do is have any success trying to explain visions in immaterial terms. Everything in the Bible screams material dynamics.

 

[topher694]

Endless rhetoric. Since when does clarification count as a complaint?

Complaint:

One of your favorite tactics is to hold me to an impossible standard of 'proof'

Moving on:

First of all, wrong methodology. I showed you a literal passage that screams material Light. You should have done two things.
(1) Shown my argument invalid (i.e. address the material veil on Moses' face).
(2) Show me some passages that establish 'magical immaterial substance'.

You did neither. Instead, you point me to a passage that you think is non-literal. Relevance? Do the non-literal passages negate the literal ones? Do they establish immaterialism?

Again, this is where you are completely missing it. Your argument is not well formed, therefore, according to the laws of logic, all I needed to do was post a non-literal example to demonstrate that your argument is invalid, that's it. If you had made a sound argument that would not be the case. There are easily a half dozen more scriptures that demonstrate your argument is invalid.

Now to be clear what I posted does not in anyway prove any alternative argument either. In only demonstrates your invalid argument.

I know you don't understand this, so there is little point in continuing, but if you are going to be throwing around words like "proof" then ridiculing people who respond, it may be good to spend some time actually studying how to formulate logical arguments.

 

[JAL]

Complaint:


Moving on:


Again, this is where you are completely missing it. Your argument is not well formed, therefore, according to the laws of logic, all I needed to do was post a non-literal example to demonstrate that your argument is invalid, that's it. If you had made a sound argument that would not be the case. There are easily a half dozen more scriptures that demonstrate your argument is invalid.

Now to be clear what I posted does not in anyway prove any alternative argument either. In only demonstrates your invalid argument.

I know you don't understand this, so there is little point in continuing, but if you are going to be throwing around words like "proof" then ridiculing people who respond, it may be good to spend some time actually studying how to formulate logical arguments.

So the existence of a non-literal passage impugns the literal passages? By that logic, the whole Bible is impugned. Why do you believe in the Bible, then? You're not making any sense.

 

[JAL]

Your argument is not well formed...

LOL. Almost 600 posts deep, still waiting for you to provide a 'well-formed' argument that establishes the existence of 'magical immaterial substance'.

Again, the nature of my proofs is to demonstrate a higher exegetical fidelity than alternative views, and more logical coherence and consistency. You haven't managed to impugn my demonstrations. Let's go back to those passages:

"His face was like the sun shining in all its brilliance" (Rev 1:16).

"The city does not need the sun or the moon to shine on it, for the glory of God gives it light, and the Lamb is its lamp" (Rev 21).

"There shall be no night there; and they need no candle, neither light of the sun; for the Lord God giveth them light" (Rev 22).

The Book of Revelation is pretty clear that a heavenly city exists. Obviously, no one wants to try to navigate a city in total darkness. The obvious solution - the ONLY feasible solution - is material Light. That material Light, per the verses cited, is the Glory of God.

When there is only one right answer, those who deny it are being stubborn.

 

[topher694]

LOL. Almost 600 posts deep, still waiting for you to provide a 'well-formed' argument that establishes the existence of 'magical immaterial substance'.

Again, the nature of my proofs is to demonstrate a higher exegetical fidelity than alternative views, and more logical coherence and consistency. You haven't managed to impugn my demonstrations. Let's go back to those passages:

"His face was like the sun shining in all its brilliance" (Rev 1:16).

"The city does not need the sun or the moon to shine on it, for the glory of God gives it light, and the Lamb is its lamp" (Rev 21).

"There shall be no night there; and they need no candle, neither light of the sun; for the Lord God giveth them light" (Rev 22).

The Book of Revelation is pretty clear that a heavenly city exists. Obviously, no one wants to try to navigate a city in total darkness. The obvious solution - the ONLY feasible solution - is material Light. That material Light, per the verses cited, is the Glory of God.

When there is only one right answer, those who deny it are being stubborn.

This is just more of the exact same thing. You've learned nothing.

You have also ignored the fact that the burden of proof is on you as you started the thread to make your (invalid) claims...

It's OK to admit you don't know what a well formed argument is, just spend some time studying. There's no shame in it.

 

[JAL]

This is just more of the exact same thing. You've learned nothing.

You have also ignored the fact that the burden of proof is on you as you started the thread to make your (invalid) claims...

It's OK to admit you don't know what a well formed argument is, just spend some time studying. There's no shame in it.

Burden of proof fallacy.