'Knowledge' of Existence

cvanwey · Sep 11, 2018

I greatly appreciate the time and effort. I'm going to respond to the parts which appear to specifically touch on your assertion of organized creationism.

Oncedeceived said:
The laws of logic imply the existence of God.

Why do the Laws of Logic imply the existence of the specific God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob? Christianity is based on Scripture and that is where we find the identity and foundation of the universe and the specifics we should expect. In other words, the Bible informs us what to look for if as it claims the God of the Bible exists.

To me, the Bible appears to be written by humans, in an attempt to explain what they visualized at the time in which they wrote it; and nothing more. The Bible does not appear to represent anything forthcoming, prolific, or forward thinking in any manor.

Blanket example, if the Bible would have said something as mundane as - 'Please always wash your hands prior to placing them in your mouth, to avoid small foreign invaders which cause disease and sickness,' would be a nice start. Something as 'basic' as this, might demonstrate foreknowledge, verses looking at what was seen at the time, and presupposing a conclusion anyone at the time could conclude without extra foreknowledge.

Oncedeceived said:
Regarding the Laws of Logic (and the Laws of Nature which we are not addressing right now) there are claims that present what to expect. There are a few verses that are important to the evidence supporting the claims.

Oncedeceived said:
“For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, (Emphasis mine) so that they are without excuse.” Romans 1:20

No. The verse demonstrates a classic argument from ignorance fallacy. 'When one looks at everything, one can only conclude it must have been created. And until you can prove otherwise, the default conclusion is that my specific God created it.'

There represents nothing of substance from such a verse.

Oncedeceived said:
God has provided within the things created patterns, designs and solutions from the beginning of time and imparted this information to us through the LoL and gave us solutions even before we needed them. We are ingrained to search for these patterns and designs so that we too can provide similar solutions to our environment when necessary. These designs are apparent in all things created.

EVEN IF creation is the conclusion in some capacity, how does any of this lead specifically to the God of Abraham, verses the many asserted opposing God/Gods/fallible agent(s)/other? I asked for evidence specifically leading to Yahweh, not presupposing 'creation', therefore it has to only be my specific God.

Oncedeceived said:
You don't have to finish the whole thing if you don't want to, the first few minutes will suffice.

I hate to break it to you, but this specific example was thoroughly debunked back in 2005, once and for all. Please fast forward to 1:03 minutes in, and beyond to the end, if you wish.

****************

Again, I'm asking for evidence leading specifically to Yahweh, and not something that may also lead to many other plausible conclusions. I've seen absolutely nothing in this reply leading specifically to Yahweh.

All your a priori conclusions no further demonstrate a 'change agent', verses an '(imperfect/prefect) creating/driving force', verses other. I asked for evidence leading specifically to Yahweh, and not evidence which could as equally be cited for the opposing claimed God(s) of the many people I've encountered over the decades.

Do you have anything in which has not thoroughly been addressed? Anything new?

Eight Foot Manchild · Sep 11, 2018

Oncedeceived said:
A rock would exist as a rock rather than a tree whether or not we describe it that way or not.

Correct. That is what I am saying. Absent any minds at all, things would still be themselves. They would just lack the labels we've made up to describe them.

Oncedeceived said:
I am not sure what you mean, power in and of themselves

I mean just that. The law 'A=A' does not cause things to be themselves. That is backwards. The correct order is, things are themselves, and A=A is a description of that fact.

Oncedeceived said:
can we disobey logic?

Of course. Logic is the study and application of the methods and principles used to distinguish correct from incorrect reasoning (Copi and Cohen, 11th Edition). People misuse those methods and disobey those principles all the time.

Do you mean to ask, can we disobey the laws of (classic) logic, AKA the laws of thought?

No, we can't. We are bounded by reality. A thing can only be itself.

Oncedeceived said:
Truth needs mind

You're contradicting yourself. Earlier, you said 'A rock would exist as a rock rather than a tree whether or not we describe it that way', indicating that truth is not mind-dependent.

Now you're saying it is.

Which is it? If indeed you've settled on the idea that 'truth needs mind', that's a naked assertion. You have to substantiate it.

Oncedeceived said:
How in your opinion does it work? How are the Laws of Logic absolute truth universally, in any possible world, at any possible time whether we exist or not?

Because reality is immutable.

You would say that Yahweh is immutable. The difference is, you are burdened with substantiating the concept of 'necessarily existing thoughts', while I am not. The reality I believe in is not dependent on any mind, or thoughts thereof.

Oncedeceived said:
Your assumption that there is no necessarily existing thoughts is contrary to your statement that Things being themselves would still be a necessary truth.

That would only be contrary if I believed that reality was dependent on these 'necessarily existing thoughts' you keep talking about. I do not believe that.

Oncedeceived · Sep 12, 2018

Chriliman said:
Just because truth/logic is mind-dependent doesn’t necessarily mean it will ever change. If all minds cease then yes truth/logic will cease, but theists believe truth/logic is dependent on an immortal unchanging God(or immortal unchanging mind, if you prefer).

I misread this and that is why I responded the way I did. I apologize, we are saying the same thing.

Oncedeceived · Sep 12, 2018

cvanwey said:
I greatly appreciate the time and effort. I'm going to respond to the parts which appear to specifically touch on your assertion of organized creationism.

To me, the Bible appears to be written by humans, in an attempt to explain what they visualized at the time in which they wrote it; and nothing more. The Bible does not appear to represent anything forthcoming, prolific, or forward thinking in any manor.

I disagree. There are many verses in the Bible that give information before the event happened.

Blanket example, if the Bible would have said something as mundane as - 'Please always wash your hands prior to placing them in your mouth, to avoid small foreign invaders which cause disease and sickness,' would be a nice start. Something as 'basic' as this, might demonstrate foreknowledge, verses looking at what was seen at the time, and presupposing a conclusion anyone at the time could conclude without extra foreknowledge.

Oh there are, Israel coming back to their homeland for one and becoming a nation.

No. The verse demonstrates a classic argument from ignorance fallacy.

'When one looks at everything, one can only conclude it must have been created. And until you can prove otherwise, the default conclusion is that my specific God created it.'

There represents nothing of substance from such a verse.

First of all, I find this rather humorous really, knowing God exists and created the universe and for you to tell Him that HE is using a classic argument from ignorance fallacy is beyond arrogant. Secondly, I never said I could PROVE anything. I have repeatedly claimed that the LOL support the Christian worldview and support Yahweh. You have only flat out denied it all without any refutation whatsoever. Tell me how any of my argumentation doesn't support the Christian worldview and in turn Yahweh? Just making a blanket statement of refusal is not an argument.

EVEN IF creation is the conclusion in some capacity, how does any of this lead specifically to the God of Abraham, verses the many asserted opposing God/Gods/fallible agent(s)/other? I asked for evidence specifically leading to Yahweh, not presupposing 'creation', therefore it has to only be my specific God.

The Christian worldview accounts for the evidence we see in the universe, the Christian worldview is based on the Bible that gives identity and foundation for Yahweh. If you disagree, why?

I hate to break it to you, but this specific example was thoroughly debunked back in 2005, once and for all. Please fast forward to 1:03 minutes in, and beyond to the end, if you wish.

****************

It wasn't thoroughly debunked, maybe you thought it was, but giving a "possible" route to something is not evidence to debunk. So so stories are not evidence. However, the point was that we "design" after God "designs". We didn't know about this type of motor before we designed ours. That was the point you missed.

Again, I'm asking for evidence leading specifically to Yahweh, and not something that may also lead to many other plausible conclusions. I've seen absolutely nothing in this reply leading specifically to Yahweh.

I haven't seen any given of these many other plausible conclusions. Care to share?

All your a priori conclusions no further demonstrate a 'change agent', verses an '(imperfect/prefect) creating/driving force', verses other. I asked for evidence leading specifically to Yahweh, and not evidence which could as equally be cited for the opposing claimed God(s) of the many people I've encountered over the decades.

How does the evidence not support Yahweh?

Do you have anything in which has not thoroughly been addressed? Anything new?

Do you have anything SPECIFICALLY that you can argue against my argument?

Oncedeceived · Sep 12, 2018

Eight Foot Manchild said:
Correct. That is what I am saying. Absent any minds at all, things would still be themselves. They would just lack the labels we've made up to describe them.

I mean just that. The law 'A=A' does not cause things to be themselves. That is backwards. The correct order is, things are themselves, and A=A is a description of that fact.

Is there absolute truth?

Of course. Logic is the study and application of the methods and principles used to distinguish correct from incorrect reasoning (Copi and Cohen, 11th Edition). People misuse those methods and disobey those principles all the time.

Do you mean to ask, can we disobey the laws of (classic) logic, AKA the laws of thought?

No, we can't. We are bounded by reality. A thing can only be itself.

So do things have an absolute essence?

You're contradicting yourself. Earlier, you said 'A rock would exist as a rock rather than a tree whether or not we describe it that way', indicating that truth is not mind-dependent.

Now you're saying it is.

Which is it? If indeed you've settled on the idea that 'truth needs mind', that's a naked assertion. You have to substantiate it.

We as humans.

Because reality is immutable.

How do you know?

You would say that Yahweh is immutable. The difference is, you are burdened with substantiating the concept of 'necessarily existing thoughts', while I am not. The reality I believe in is not dependent on any mind, or thoughts thereof.

How do you know that?

That would only be contrary if I believed that reality was dependent on these 'necessarily existing thoughts' you keep talking about. I do not believe that.

Why? What is the reality of the Laws of nature dependent upon?

cvanwey · Sep 12, 2018

Oncedeceived said:
I disagree. There are many verses in the Bible that give information before the event happened.

Please provide the very best and most convincing Bible verse/passage, which you feel demonstrates absolute foreknowledge? Something in which cannot instead also be interpreted in more than one way? And instead, is very specific to the claimed future occurrence/event?

Oncedeceived said:
Oh there are, Israel coming back to their homeland for one and becoming a nation.

Please provide the very best Bible verse/passage, which you feel demonstrates Israel coming back in the way in which Israel actually did become reformed? Something in which cannot instead be interpreted in more than one way? And instead, is very specific to the claimed future occurrence/event?

I have found that many true believers, in their specific faith, accept the apparent 'hits', and ignore the many misses. Not just Christians...

Oncedeceived said:
First of all, I find this rather humorous really, knowing God exists and created the universe and for you to tell Him that HE is using a classic argument from ignorance fallacy is beyond arrogant.

Please remember, ALL TEXT WRITTEN TO PAPER is done so by human beings, with no aid from any external forces. By DEFAULT, any/all verses were merely written by humans. Until such a being is demonstrated (to me), it again becomes the default conclusion that any/all such stated Bible verses are written from humans alone ;-) This is not arrogance, but instead my personal honesty.

And yes, such a statement does represent a fallacious statement; and is so if not actually coming from the asserted 'creative force.'

Oncedeceived said:
Secondly, I never said I could PROVE anything. I have repeatedly claimed that the LOL support the Christian worldview and support Yahweh. You have only flat out denied it all without any refutation whatsoever. Tell me how any of my argumentation doesn't support the Christian worldview and in turn Yahweh? Just making a blanket statement of refusal is not an argument.

I'm sorry, but this is not how such 'arguments' work. I'm not the one whom repeatedly cited LOL. You did. You are the one asserting, or drawing a direct connection, to your very specific claimed God. You are again attempting to shift the burden of proof. Your argument no closer demonstrates a direct connection to the God of Abraham, than it does to the assertion of multiple creators, a fallible deity, fallible deities, a 'Matrix' scenario, etc.

Stating you cannot prove this then eludes to possibly instead just representing 'hope' or 'faith'. I too hope and have some faith in things. But if you are unsuccessful in tying them directly to your very specific God, then all such asserted 'connections' is nothing more than wishful thinking.

And in such a case, I must ask what direct evidence then actually leads to your specific believed God, as being the true and real God; if your initial mention of LOL will not specifically lead us there???

Oncedeceived said:
It wasn't thoroughly debunked, maybe you thought it was, but giving a "possible" route to something is not evidence to debunk. So so stories are not evidence. However, the point was that we "design" after God "designs". We didn't know about this type of motor before we designed ours. That was the point you missed.

Haha. You are too funny. The video plainly demonstrates why no one, in this day and age of documented discovery, should still be using the 'bacteria flagella' argument under any viable or credible circumstances for 'creationism' or 'intelligent design'. The fact that you 'rubber stamped' such a documentary as 'so so' is very telling to me.

The bacteria demonstrates natural evolutionary processes, from prior and more simplistic evolutionary structure. It further also dispels prior notions of 'irreducible complexity', (which is a very large proponent for creationist argumentation).

Oncedeceived said:
How does the evidence not support Yahweh?

The exact same reason the evidence does not give direct support for any other asserted and claimed monotheistic or polytheistic 'creator(s)'.

Oncedeceived said:
Do you have anything SPECIFICALLY that you can argue against my argument?

I feel I have been painfully clear. I am a skeptic to all asserted god claims. You are again attempting to shift the burden of proof. I'll now give you a quick example for clarity:

'Prove the noise in my attic last night wasn't from a ghost specifically! You can't. Therefore, it must have been a ghost.'

Oncedeceived · Sep 13, 2018

cvanwey said:
Please provide the very best and most convincing Bible verse/passage, which you feel demonstrates absolute foreknowledge? Something in which cannot instead also be interpreted in more than one way? And instead, is very specific to the claimed future occurrence/event?

Please provide the very best Bible verse/passage, which you feel demonstrates Israel coming back in the way in which Israel actually did become reformed? Something in which cannot instead be interpreted in more than one way? And instead, is very specific to the claimed future occurrence/event?

I have found that many true believers, in their specific faith, accept the apparent 'hits', and ignore the many misses. Not just Christians...[/Quote]
Ok, I am going in a different way than this right now. I promise I will come back to this eventually. Right now I think you are not prepared to look at this with an open mind. I could be wrong, but I think we need to go a different route.

Please remember, ALL TEXT WRITTEN TO PAPER is done so by human beings, with no aid from any external forces. By DEFAULT, any/all verses were merely written by humans. Until such a being is demonstrated (to me), it again becomes the default conclusion that any/all such stated Bible verses are written from humans alone ;-) This is not arrogance, but instead my personal honesty.

And yes, such a statement does represent a fallacious statement; and is so if not actually coming from the asserted 'creative force.'

Again, this is something we will look at down the road.

I'm sorry, but this is not how such 'arguments' work. I'm not the one whom repeatedly cited LOL. You did. You are the one asserting, or drawing a direct connection, to your very specific claimed God. You are again attempting to shift the burden of proof. Your argument no closer demonstrates a direct connection to the God of Abraham, than it does to the assertion of multiple creators, a fallible deity, fallible deities, a 'Matrix' scenario, etc.

Stating you cannot prove this then eludes to possibly instead just representing 'hope' or 'faith'. I too hope and have some faith in things. But if you are unsuccessful in tying them directly to your very specific God, then all such asserted 'connections' is nothing more than wishful thinking.

And in such a case, I must ask what direct evidence then actually leads to your specific believed God, as being the true and real God; if your initial mention of LOL will not specifically lead us there???

You misunderstand, I am not asking you to provide evidence against my position. I am asking for your position. Just denying my position without providing what you think is reasoning behind what you believe is not shifting the burden. You have the burden to provide the reasoning behind your own position.

Now, first of all it is imperative that we have a meeting of the minds on a very important part of your premise of the thread. I asked if you thought Yahweh was a possibility and you said yes. Let's put that on the back burner and determine whether or not you feel that Christianity is a reasonable and cohesive worldview. Let's determine what you believe in your worldview and we then can discuss how those two worldviews may dictate the way we see things. Are you game?

Haha. You are too funny. The video plainly demonstrates why no one, in this day and age of documented discovery, should still be using the 'bacteria flagella' argument under any viable or credible circumstances for 'creationism' or 'intelligent design'. The fact that you 'rubber stamped' such a documentary as 'so so' is very telling to me.

The bacteria demonstrates natural evolutionary processes, from prior and more simplistic evolutionary structure. It further also dispels prior notions of 'irreducible complexity', (which is a very large proponent for creationist argumentation).

This is a good example of your worldview and how you view the evidence and for that matter how my worldview affects the way I view it. I think you make assumptions based not on me personally but as a general rule for Christians. Which is fine, we all do that. First of all, why do you think that this debunks intelligent design? What have you determined by this information that there was no intelligence behind the process?

I feel I have been painfully clear. I am a skeptic to all asserted god claims. You are again attempting to shift the burden of proof. I'll now give you a quick example for clarity:

'Prove the noise in my attic last night wasn't from a ghost specifically! You can't. Therefore, it must have been a ghost.'

Again, you have misunderstood my position. I don't want you to prove my position wrong, I want you to provide your position and give me reason for it.

Eight Foot Manchild · Sep 13, 2018

Oncedeceived said:
Is there absolute truth?

What do you mean?

Oncedeceived said:
So do things have an absolute essence?

What do you mean?

Oncedeceived said:
We as humans.

'We as humans' what? That seems like an incomplete thought. Substantiate your assertion that 'truth needs a mind'.

Oncedeceived said:
How do you know?

How do I know that reality is immutable? Same way you 'know' that Yahweh is immutable, I suppose. There is no other way for reality to be.

We are both attempting to formulate worldviews that are internally and externally coherent, so we have to adopt some axioms in order to get anywhere.

The difference is, you apparently deem it necessary that reality must derive from a conscious entity, and that entity itself - 'Yahweh' - is what's immutable. I do not deem that assumption necessary, or warranted in any way, in order to make sense of anything in my worldview, and I remain thoroughly unconvinced.

Oncedeceived said:
How do you know that?

How do I know that reality is not the product of a mind? I don't. But you are the positive claimant. The burden of proof is yours.

Oncedeceived said:
Why? What is the reality of the Laws of nature dependent upon?

Reality is not 'dependent' on anything. Laws are descriptions of reality, so in a sense, they are 'dependent' on our inventing them, but the reality they describe would be as it is with or without us.

cvanwey · Sep 13, 2018

Oncedeceived said:
You misunderstand, I am not asking you to provide evidence against my position. I am asking for your position. Just denying my position without providing what you think is reasoning behind what you believe is not shifting the burden. You have the burden to provide the reasoning behind your own position.

Fair enough... My position is simple, and virtually has no 'burden of proof' to demonstrate.

Do humans exist? Yes

Do writings from humans exist? Yes

Were the writings from the Bible inspired by anything other than humans alone? I doubt it. - There does not appear to be one 'Bible prophecy', which appears to be specific enough to the Bible's stated position, which cannot also be interpreted in other ways. (This includes the Bible, the Qur'an, and others)

(Even if a 'driving force(s)' was to exist, to 'spark' the very beginnings of abiogenesis, existence of matter and energy, or to demonstrate Aquinas' 'first mover/prime mover position', the Bible does not appear to represent demonstration, via recent discovery over the past few hundred years and over a multitude of disciplines).

Oncedeceived said:
Now, first of all it is imperative that we have a meeting of the minds on a very important part of your premise of the thread. I asked if you thought Yahweh was a possibility and you said yes. Let's put that on the back burner and determine whether or not you feel that Christianity is a reasonable and cohesive worldview. Let's determine what you believe in your worldview and we then can discuss how those two worldviews may dictate the way we see things. Are you game?

Sure

Oncedeceived said:
This is a good example of your worldview and how you view the evidence and for that matter how my worldview affects the way I view it. I think you make assumptions based not on me personally but as a general rule for Christians. Which is fine, we all do that. First of all, why do you think that this debunks intelligent design? What have you determined by this information that there was no intelligence behind the process?

All one could 'possibly' conclude, is that there 'possibly' exists/existed a god(s), perfect/imperfect creator(s), or other, to generate simple organisms, and later watched them evolve to what they are today. So even if such a 'driving force' exists, to substantiate such later observed laws of consistency, the Bible does not appear to be the mastermind - (according to Genesis).

In conclusion... EVEN IF we someday found out there exists some 'prime mover', there would still be a very large GAP between what we now have discovered about our universe, in stark contrast to the entire claimed book of truth (i.e.) - Genesis.

Oncedeceived said:
Again, you have misunderstood my position. I don't want you to prove my position wrong, I want you to provide your position and give me reason for it.

Observable nature 'apparently' exists. Yes, you could put on your philosopher's hat and critique such a 'truth', but I'm not interested

Any/all claims to anything supernatural hold the burden of proof.

Again, my position is simple. The Bible was written by humans, and was not inspired by anything other than humans. I trust you are aware that this is the default position? Just the same as the claimed Holy Qur'an would hold the same conclusion (by default)?

Oncedeceived · Sep 14, 2018

cvanwey said:
Fair enough... My position is simple, and virtually has no 'burden of proof' to demonstrate.

Do humans exist? Yes

Do writings from humans exist? Yes

Were the writings from the Bible inspired by anything other than humans alone? I doubt it. - There does not appear to be one 'Bible prophecy', which appears to be specific enough to the Bible's stated position, which cannot also be interpreted in other ways. (This includes the Bible, the Qur'an, and others)

No, you aren't getting this. I don't want your position on my position. I want you to give me your worldview position. How do you explain the apparent design in the universe? How do you explain the fact that there are Laws of Logic's existence, how do you explain the order of the universe? How do you explain the ability for our minds to understand the universe? How do you explain mathematics being utilized in the makeup of the universe? What is your position on these things?

(Even if a 'driving force(s)' was to exist, to 'spark' the very beginnings of abiogenesis, existence of matter and energy, or to demonstrate Aquinas' 'first mover/prime mover position', the Bible does not appear to represent demonstration, via recent discovery over the past few hundred years and over a multitude of disciplines).

Surprisingly, Science has brought the Bible and the universe closer than before. When I began coming to these forums many people would claim that there couldn't be water in the beginning of the universe because it was too hot, Science found that yes there was a liquid just like water at the beginning of the universe. People claimed that there couldn't be water on earth early because again it was too hot for liquid to exist, Science found that yes there was water on early earth, and there are others as well.

All one could 'possibly' conclude, is that there 'possibly' exists/existed a god(s), perfect/imperfect creator(s), or other, to generate simple organisms, and later watched them evolve to what they are today. So

even if such a 'driving force' exists, to substantiate such later observed laws of consistency, the Bible does not appear to be the mastermind - (according to Genesis).

The Bible isn't God, it is inspired by God. Tell me what your concerns are concerning Genesis.

In conclusion... EVEN IF we someday found out there exists some 'prime mover', there would still be a very large GAP between what we now have discovered about our universe, in stark contrast to the entire claimed book of truth (i.e.) - Genesis.

Well, again, what is your concern about Genesis?

Any/all claims to anything supernatural hold the burden of proof.

Claims of anything share a burden of proof. You are not immune to that burden. You have the burden to prove your position when using it against mine. You can't just give a blanket denial and give no reason or evidence that shows mine is wrong. For instance, the Bacterial Flagellum. You claim that it has refuted intelligent design, how? How do you explain the order from which any evolutionary process begins with?

Again, my position is simple. The Bible was written by humans, and was not inspired by anything other than humans. I trust you are aware that this is the default position? Just the same as the claimed Holy Qur'an would hold the same conclusion (by default)?

And again, I don't care. I want you to explain YOUR explanation for those things we are discussing.

Oncedeceived · Sep 14, 2018

Eight Foot Manchild said:
What do you mean?

You don't know what absolute truth means?

What do you mean?

I mean, if someone in some far away island that has never had contact with anyone outside of the Island...ever...would they claim a rock was a flower?

'We as humans' what? That seems like an incomplete thought. Substantiate your assertion that 'truth needs a mind'.

It doesn't depend on human minds. Our minds are not necessary, but some mind is necessary as the Laws of Logic are of the mind and since they are not dependent on ours they must be dependent on some mind; a mind that is eternally thinking. If you disagree, what do you believe?

How do I know that reality is immutable? Same way you 'know' that Yahweh is immutable, I suppose. There is no other way for reality to be.

How do you explain that reality is the way it is and no other way? What in your worldview explains that reality is always the way it is?

We are both attempting to formulate worldviews that are internally and externally coherent, so we have to adopt some axioms in order to get anywhere.

That is what I am trying to get at, what do you use to explain how the Laws of Logic which are conceptual but not dependent on our minds exist?

The difference is, you apparently deem it necessary that reality must derive from a conscious entity, and that entity itself - 'Yahweh' - is what's immutable. I do not deem that assumption necessary, or warranted in any way, in order to make sense of anything in my worldview, and I remain thoroughly unconvinced.

What in your position determines that reality is immutable? What in your worldview explains that reality will not change tomorrow?

How do I know that reality is not the product of a mind? I don't. But you are the positive claimant. The burden of proof is yours.

How do you know that your reality isn't dependent on a mind or thoughts? Your positive claim is that your reality doesn't depend on a mind or thoughts...the burden for your position rests on you. I don't even need "proof", I just want an explanation that is coherent and consistent within your worldview.

Reality is not 'dependent' on anything. Laws are descriptions of reality, so in a sense, they are 'dependent' on our inventing them, but the reality they describe would be as it is with or without us.

Here you are again, making a positive claim..."Reality is not 'dependent' on anything", how do you know that reality is not dependent on anything?

Eight Foot Manchild · Sep 14, 2018

Oncedeceived said:
You don't know what absolute truth means?

I know what it means to me. I doubt we would agree, though. That's why I asked.

Oncedeceived said:
I mean, if someone in some far away island that has never had contact with anyone outside of the Island...ever...would they claim a rock was a flower?

No, in all likelihood, they would still be able to tell objects apart from one another.

Though maybe not. There are some extreme examples of people being raised in complete isolation who lacked basic cognitive functions, like object permanence and depth perception, even into adulthood.

Oncedeceived said:
It doesn't depend on human minds. Our minds are not necessary, but some mind is necessary as the Laws of Logic are of the mind

They are of our minds. We invented them to describe the behavior of reality.

My worldview distinguishes between reality and statements about reality. Yours, apparently, does not.

Oncedeceived said:
If you disagree, what do you believe?

I believe that reality is not contingent on anything.

Oncedeceived said:
That is what I am trying to get at, what do you use to explain how the Laws of Logic which are conceptual but not dependent on our minds exist?

See above. They are dependent on our minds. But the reality which they describe is not. If there were no minds at all, reality would continue to operate exactly as it does now.

Again, my worldview distinguishes between reality and statements about reality. Does yours?

Oncedeceived said:
What in your position determines that reality is immutable? What in your worldview explains that reality will not change tomorrow?

Nothing 'determines' it. It's not contingent on anything. That's what your worldview proposes - a reality predicated on the mind of Yahweh.

Which means, of course, without a reliable means of gleaning information from or about Yahweh, you have no way of accurately gleaning any reliable information about reality. He could reorder all of reality in the blink of an eye in the next five seconds, for all you know.

My worldview has no such issue. A reality that is not contingent on the thoughts and deeds of a nebulous, all-powerful super-entity is not in danger of being reordered or destroyed at any second.

Oncedeceived said:
How do you know that your reality isn't dependent on a mind or thoughts? Your positive claim is that your reality doesn't depend on a mind or thoughts
...
Here you are again, making a positive claim..."Reality is not 'dependent' on anything", how do you know that reality is not dependent on anything?

There is no such positive claim. My claim is that reality - and my worldview - operate just fine without that assumption.

My worldview: Reality is immutable and not predicated on anything.

Your worldview: Reality is predicated on the mind of Yahweh, Yahweh is immutable and not predicated on anything.

You are the one adding the extra step of supernatural agency into the equation. You are the one asserting that your worldview must be adopted to make sense of reality. Therefor the burden of proof is yours. Show your work - why is Yahweh a necessary assumption?

Oncedeceived · Sep 14, 2018

Eight Foot Manchild said:
I know what it means to me. I doubt we would agree, though. That's why I asked.

What does it mean to you?

No, in all likelihood, they would still be able to tell objects apart from one another.

Though maybe not. There are some extreme examples of people being raised in complete isolation who lacked basic cognitive functions, like object permanence and depth perception, even into adulthood.

Do you think that the Laws of Logic are absolute, universal and immaterial?

They are of our minds. We invented them to describe the behavior of reality.

So you don't believe they are universal?

My worldview distinguishes between reality and statements about reality. Yours, apparently, does not.

How do we distinguish between reality and statements about reality? In your view.

[QuoteI believe that reality is not contingent on anything.[/Quote]So am I correct in assuming that you hold the belief that the universe is a chance event?

See above. They are dependent on our minds. But the reality which they describe is not. If there were no minds at all, reality would continue to operate exactly as it does now.

Indeed, it would, we both can agree with that. However, would the concepts of reality continue as they do now? A rock will still be a rock and not a tree, we can agree on that; however, to observe a rock we have to assign a logical absolute to that observation. We don’t invent the Laws of Logic from the observations; we instead confirm the pre-existing logical truths with our observations. We conceptualize what we observe to be a rock by the pre-existing universal logical absolute of the rock. We couldn't conceptualize the observation without those universal truths.

Again, my worldview distinguishes between reality and statements about reality. Does yours?

How do you make statements about reality? That is the point. What takes that observation of reality into the conceptual essence of that reality.

Nothing 'determines' it. It's not contingent on anything. That's what your worldview proposes - a reality predicated on the mind of Yahweh.

If nothing 'determines' it how is it immutable?

Which means, of course, without a reliable means of gleaning information from or about Yahweh, you have no way of accurately gleaning any reliable information about reality. He could reorder all of reality in the blink of an eye in the next five seconds, for all you know.

That isn't consistent with Theology. Christian Theology maintains that God is unchanging and insomuch as He is, the universe as well is uniform and unchanging. Your position has no grounding in its uniformity from what I can tell.

My worldview has no such issue. A reality that is not contingent on the thoughts and deeds of a nebulous, all-powerful super-entity is not in danger of being reordered or destroyed at any second.

Again, not consistent with Christian theology.

There is no such positive claim. My claim is that reality - and my worldview - operate just fine without that assumption.

My worldview: Reality is immutable and not predicated on anything.

That it operates just fine is not an explanation. That is begging the question.

Your worldview: Reality is predicated on the mind of Yahweh, Yahweh is immutable and not predicated on anything.

You are the one adding the extra step of supernatural agency into the equation. You are the one asserting that your worldview must be adopted to make sense of reality. Therefor the burden of proof is yours. Show your work - why is Yahweh a necessary assumption?

No, I'm not adding anything. You are deducting the necessary element of even your own argumentation.

Eight Foot Manchild · Sep 14, 2018

Oncedeceived said:
What does it mean to you?

Nothing. The 'absolute' qualifier is not needed. Just say 'truth' - truth being that which is in accordance with reality.

Oncedeceived said:
Do you think that the Laws of Logic are absolute, universal and immaterial? So you don't believe they are universal?

Immaterial, yes. Absolute and universal, NO.

Once again, the reality which the laws describe are what's immutable, not the laws themselves.

Oncedeceived said:
How do we distinguish between reality and statements about reality? In your view.

Statements about reality come from the conscious, sentient entities which reside as part of it - humans being the only ones we know of.

Reality itself doesn't 'come from' anywhere.

Oncedeceived said:
So am I correct in assuming that you hold the belief that the universe is a chance event?

No. The answer to that question is unknown.

Oncedeceived said:
Indeed, it would, we both can agree with that.

No we can't. You believe reality derives from and requires the existence of a mind - that of Yahweh. I believe that if there were no minds at all, reality would continue to operate as it is, because reality isn't derived from any mind. We do not agree at all.

Oncedeceived said:
However, would the concepts of reality continue as they do now? A rock will still be a rock and not a tree, we can agree on that; however, to observe a rock we have to assign a logical absolute to that observation. We don’t invent the Laws of Logic from the observations; we instead confirm the pre-existing logical truths with our observations. We conceptualize what we observe to be a rock by the pre-existing universal logical absolute of the rock. We couldn't conceptualize the observation without those universal truths.

However....what? I wouldn't word this quite the same way as you, but I fail to see how any of this in anyway necessitates that reality is predicated on a mind.

Those objects - the atomic chassis of the things we call 'rocks' - would still be around if all minds disappeared tomorrow. The only thing that would be gone is the labels.

Because, once again, the laws themselves do not hold reality in check. 'A=A' does not cause a rock to be itself, just as 'E=MC²' does not cause matter and energy to be equivalent. These are descriptions of reality.

Oncedeceived said:
How do you make statements about reality?

With my mouth. Or through writing. Or I may hold them in my thoughts.

Oncedeceived said:
If nothing 'determines' it how is it immutable?

You have that question exactly backwards.

If reality is determined, how can it be immutable? What's to say the force that determines it can't alter or destroy it at any second?

However, if it's not determined, there is no such worry.

Oncedeceived said:
That isn't consistent with Theology. Christian Theology maintains that God is unchanging and insomuch as He is, the universe as well is uniform and unchanging.

And I maintain that the universe is uniform and unchanging on its own, eliminating the unwarranted and unnecessary assumption of supernatural agency.

Oncedeceived said:
Your position has no grounding in its uniformity from what I can tell.

It has exactly the same grounding you have.

Except better. I don't have to trust that an omnipotent cosmic mind won't reorder or destroy all of reality five seconds from now.

Oncedeceived said:
Again, not consistent with Christian theology.

It's not consistent with anything I believe, either.

The difference is, you are left having to trust that your theology on the matter is correct. I have no need for theology at all, so I have no such problem.

Oncedeceived said:
That it operates just fine is not an explanation.

Yes it is. Again, the assertion you are attempting to prove is that your worldview must necessarily be adopted. If my worldview operates fine without the assumption your worldview is predicated on, then your assertion is wrong.

Oncedeceived said:
No, I'm not adding anything

My worldview posits reality. Your worldview posits Yahweh, from whom reality derives. That's adding something.

Oncedeceived said:
You are deducting the necessary element of even your own argumentation.

You are tasked with proving that necessity. You have so far failed.

I ask again - why must reality necessarily derive from a mind? I remain thoroughly unconvinced.

cvanwey · Sep 14, 2018

Oncedeceived said:
No, you aren't getting this. I don't want your position on my position. I want you to give me your worldview position. How do you explain the apparent design in the universe? How do you explain the fact that there are Laws of Logic's existence, how do you explain the order of the universe? How do you explain the ability for our minds to understand the universe? How do you explain mathematics being utilized in the makeup of the universe? What is your position on these things?

I think it is you whom may not quite understand. I'm not the one making the assertion to a specific conclusion, YOU ARE I'm not the one associating and tying a self-brought-up topic (i.e. LOL), to a very specific conclusion.

I stated long ago in this thread... I empathize with the fact I have no clue whether or not the conclusion only results in a singular and perfect 'driving force.' I also acknowledge that there exists many asserted conclusions, (all which present equal probability for an answer). And possibly also many others in which I cannot currently imagine, as probable.

So as stated much prior, I'm not going to adopt the conclusion of, 'until you can completely disprove my very specific conclusion, I remain correct.' I also completely acknowledge that your concluded assertion is not falsifiable Many claims are not falsifiable - (keep reading below)...

I will also again reiterate the following definitions:

theist - 'the belief in one God as the creator and ruler of the universe, without rejection of revelation' - dictionary.com

skeptic - 'a person who questions the validity or authenticity of something purporting to be factual. a person who maintains a doubting attitude, as toward values, plans, statements, or the character of others. a person who doubts the truth of a religion, especially Christianity, or of important elements of it.' - dictionary.com

Oncedeceived said:
Surprisingly, Science has brought the Bible and the universe closer than before. When I began coming to these forums many people would claim that there couldn't be water in the beginning of the universe because it was too hot, Science found that yes there was a liquid just like water at the beginning of the universe. People claimed that there couldn't be water on earth early because again it was too hot for liquid to exist, Science found that yes there was water on early earth, and there are others as well.

I don't get the irrelevant observation here? I never mentioned anything about water?

Remember in a previous reply, when I stated many believers (Christians, Muslims, Hindus, etc) will accept the apparent 'hits', while ignoring the many misses?

You don't think I can read verses from many ancient texts, and tie apparent direct meaning to my wanted conclusions?

Oncedeceived said:
The Bible isn't God, it is inspired by God. Tell me what your concerns are concerning Genesis.

You have completely missed my point. Without the Bible, you have no attempted authoritative claims from 'God.'

I honestly do not know why I need to even broach such basic observations, in this day and age? So I will state the very obvious one, in which I'm sure you've heard a thousand times by now.

Genesis stated God created Adam and Eve as human beings. However, if evolutionary theory is correct, Adam and Eve would not have been human, but instead something prior.

Genesis also lists an order of creation which has been in direct opposition to many scientific disciplines.

These two insights alone are enough to start two brand new topics

Oncedeceived said:
Claims of anything share a burden of proof. You are not immune to that burden. You have the burden to prove your position when using it against mine. You can't just give a blanket denial and give no reason or evidence that shows mine is wrong.

I vastly disagree. Example:

I'm a 'BigFootist'. And I claim 'I saw Big Foot in the forest while camping yesterday.'

You don't mean to tell me it is also 'your burden' to disprove me, do you?

Now this example:

You are a 'theist'. You are claiming that LOL leads directly to Yahweh.

You don't mean to tell me it is also 'my burden' to disprove your claim, do you?

Oncedeceived said:
For instance, the Bacterial Flagellum. You claim that it has refuted intelligent design, how?

My point was not to use the bacteria flagellum as an example to argue your position. It does not demonstrate 'irreducible complexity'. You can keep stripping this form down, further and further, until it is very simple.

I also acknowledged long ago, that the 'driving force' remains unknown. I remain skeptical to all asserted theistic claims for creationism, until such evidence ties the connection to a specific conclusion.

I'm sorry to say, yet again, that to conclude Yahweh to such unknowns demonstrates no other process but fallacious reasoning.

'Can you think of a better answer? No? Therefore my specific God.' 'God exists because we do not yet know some things.'

I hate to state the obvious, but think about the many things in history's past, in which were directly attributed to god/gods, using this exact same type of reasoning, which conclusions are now instead attributed to natural processes, due to later bonafide discovery.

Please name for me one discovery, where we 'know' the answer and it concludes a documented supernatural premise/conclusion?

Oncedeceived said:
How do you explain the order from which any evolutionary process begins with?

Again, you are playing right into my response directly above (i.e.):

'I'm sorry to say, yet again, that to conclude Yahweh to such unknowns demonstrates no other process but fallacious reasoning.

'Can you think of a better answer? No? Therefore my specific God.' 'God exists because we do not yet know some things.'

Oncedeceived said:
And again, I don't care. I want you to explain YOUR explanation for those things we are discussing.

So let me get this straight? You want me to assert a conclusion for something in which no one has yet to prove, which would provide enough demonstration to generate a Nobel Prize?

Oncedeceived · Sep 15, 2018

Eight Foot Manchild said:
Nothing. The 'absolute' qualifier is not needed. Just say 'truth' - truth being that which is in accordance with reality.

Are you sure its not needed?

Immaterial, yes. Absolute and universal, NO.

So there could be a rock that is a tree somewhere?

Once again, the reality which the laws describe are what's immutable, not the laws themselves.

How do you know? What basis do you use to determine that reality is immutable and are you sure?

Statements about reality come from the conscious, sentient entities which reside as part of it - humans being the only ones we know of.

Reality itself doesn't 'come from' anywhere.

So reality is eternal?

No. The answer to that question is unknown.

So there might have been a reason for the universe?

No we can't. You believe reality derives from and requires the existence of a mind - that of Yahweh. I believe that if there were no minds at all, reality would continue to operate as it is, because reality isn't derived from any mind. We do not agree at all.

We agree that if there were no human minds that reality would continue to operate as it does. You feel that the laws of logic would then not exist, but they would and if you disagree please explain.

However....what? I wouldn't word this quite the same way as you, but I fail to see how any of this in anyway necessitates that reality is predicated on a mind.

Those objects - the atomic chassis of the things we call 'rocks' - would still be around if all minds disappeared tomorrow. The only thing that would be gone is the labels.

Because, once again, the laws themselves do not hold reality in check. 'A=A' does not cause a rock to be itself, just as 'E=MC²' does not cause matter and energy to be equivalent. These are descriptions of reality.

So tell me how we observe a rock not being a rock? How do we observe something that is both itself and not itself at the same time?

With my mouth. Or through writing. Or I may hold them in my thoughts.

Without correct thinking, without the laws of logic you would not be able to coherently relate your observations into statements about that reality.

You have that question exactly backwards.

If reality is determined, how can it be immutable? What's to say the force that determines it can't alter or destroy it at any second?

However, if it's not determined, there is no such worry.

Like I said before, in the Christian worldview reality is based on the unchanging nature of God.

What in your estimation and experience brings you to the conclusion that if the universe is not determined you have no such worry? What in your experience brings you to the conclusion that the universe should in anyway be uniform and orderly and immutable?

And I maintain that the universe is uniform and unchanging on its own, eliminating the unwarranted and unnecessary assumption of supernatural agency.

Yes, and what informs you that the universe is uniform and unchanging on its own?

It has exactly the same grounding you have.

Except better. I don't have to trust that an omnipotent cosmic mind won't reorder or destroy all of reality five seconds from now.

If the Christian worldview is correct as I claim, we know that God has set forth a sequence of events that bring about the end of the world as we know it. So we know according to revelation that the universe will remain the same until those things begin to happen and more frequently and more dramatically and that doesn't happen in five seconds.

It's not consistent with anything I believe, either.

The difference is, you are left having to trust that your theology on the matter is correct. I have no need for theology at all, so I have no such problem.

You have no problem unless Christian Theology is correct. You haven't provided much to conclude your worldview is in any way consistent and cohesive, so as I see it, mine makes much more sense.

Yes it is. Again, the assertion you are attempting to prove is that your worldview must necessarily be adopted. If my worldview operates fine without the assumption your worldview is predicated on, then your assertion is wrong.

It is rather like you claiming that you don't believe you need air, all the while you are breathing. You argue against my 'assertions' all the while using the absolute, universal laws of logic to do so. Your fine necessitates the 'air' or logic that you need to 'breath' argue your points.

My worldview posits reality.

Your reality necessitates the universal, absolute truths of the laws of logic to make sense of reality, which you deny.

You are tasked with proving that necessity. You have so far failed.

You couldn't argue your point if you were not using the universal, absolute laws of logic to do so. That you are in denial of such a basic fact is not my failing.

I ask again - why must reality necessarily derive from a mind? I remain thoroughly unconvinced.

That doesn't surprise me. The Christian worldview is grounded in an Intelligent Being; the universe is intelligible and orderly and we as humans have the ability to comprehend with intelligence the universe around us. On the other hand, if the universe is not derived by an intelligent being, how is the universe based on laws (which are not material things) and mathematics and in turn how do humans have the ability to understand it at all?

Eight Foot Manchild · Sep 15, 2018

Oncedeceived said:
*snip* Your reality necessitates the universal, absolute truths of the laws of logic to make sense of reality, which you deny.

I don't know how you can still be so utterly confused about what I believe. I've explained it at least half a dozen times at this point. Could you please put down van Tillian apologetic script for a few minutes and at least pretend you're talking to a real person?

Over and over again, I have made it clear - that it is only the descriptions of reality - not reality itself - that derive from minds.

A=A. E=MC². Etc. I deny only the immutability of these labels. Not the reality which they describe. The universe would continue to operate exactly as it does without these labels.

So just to be absolutely clear, so I don't have to go over this again, say it with me one more time - I deny the immutability of labels, not the reality they describe.

If you come back at me again accusing me of denying 'the absolute truth of the laws of logic' (to use your words), I will be forced to conclude that your worldview does not allow you to distinguish between reality and statements about reality. That really would be a shame.

Oncedeceived said:
Like I said before, in the Christian worldview reality is based on the unchanging nature of God.

And in my worldview, reality itself is unchanging, with no need or use for supernatural agency.

My worldview contains fewer assumptions, and I don't have to trust that an omnipotent cosmic mind won't reorder or destroy all of reality, with no means of reliably predicting when or how that might manifest. Mine is better.

Oncedeceived said:
So there might have been a reason for the universe?

Sure.

Oncedeceived said:
That doesn't surprise me. The Christian worldview is grounded in an Intelligent Being

It's grounded in vacuous naked assertions that collapse under the slightest scrutiny. I have no need or use for it.

Oncedeceived · Sep 15, 2018

cvanwey said:
I think it is you whom may not quite understand. I'm not the one making the assertion to a specific conclusion, YOU ARE I'm not the one associating and tying a self-brought-up topic (i.e. LOL), to a very specific conclusion.

I stated long ago in this thread... I empathize with the fact I have no clue whether or not the conclusion only results in a singular and perfect 'driving force.' I also acknowledge that there exists many asserted conclusions, (all which present equal probability for an answer). And possibly also many others in which I cannot currently imagine, as probable.

So as stated much prior, I'm not going to adopt the conclusion of, 'until you can completely disprove my very specific conclusion, I remain correct.' I also completely acknowledge that your concluded assertion is not falsifiable Many claims are not falsifiable - (keep reading below)...

I am not asking you to disprove anything. I looking at both of our worldviews or at least trying to. I am beginning to think that maybe you don't want to present yours because you might have some doubts about it?

I will also again reiterate the following definitions:

theist - 'the belief in one God as the creator and ruler of the universe, without rejection of revelation' - dictionary.com

I am arguing for Christian Theism. A blanket definition is not in keeping with my position.

skeptic - 'a person who questions the validity or authenticity of something purporting to be factual. a person who maintains a doubting attitude, as toward values, plans, statements, or the character of others. a person who doubts the truth of a religion, especially Christianity, or of important elements of it.' - dictionary.com

a person inclined to question or doubt all accepted opinions.
synonyms: cynic, doubter; More
PHILOSOPHY
an ancient or modern philosopher who denies the possibility of knowledge, or even rational belief, in some sphere.

Hmmm....

I don't get the irrelevant observation here? I never mentioned anything about water?

You mentioned Genesis and that is what I was talking about. Guess you missed that.

Remember in a previous reply, when I stated many believers (Christians, Muslims, Hindus, etc) will accept the apparent 'hits', while ignoring the many misses?

I find most atheists don't understand that there is still unfulfilled prophecy and double prophecies and sometimes mistakenly think the prophecy is unfulfilled in the past.

You don't think I can read verses from many ancient texts, and tie apparent direct meaning to my wanted conclusions?

Sorry?

You have completely missed my point. Without the Bible, you have no attempted authoritative claims from 'God.'

So?

I honestly do not know why I need to even broach such basic observations, in this day and age? So I will state the very obvious one, in which I'm sure you've heard a thousand times by now.

Genesis stated God created Adam and Eve as human beings. However, if evolutionary theory is correct, Adam and Eve would not have been human, but instead something prior.

Really? Why? You do realize that all modern humans can be traced to only one female ancestor? We also know that Cain was concerned for his safety by other people...where did Cain's wife come from? One possibility in my opinion and which I think has scriptural support is found in Genesis two. We see in Genesis two that the Bible states again creating man and woman but this time, God gave man/women a living soul. I think that we see people that were not the same as the people with living souls. Genesis two talks about the Spiritual man/woman coming into existence.

Genesis also lists an order of creation which has been in direct opposition to many scientific disciplines.

Like I said before, There was a time when Science was in opposition to any liquid form being in the beginning of the universe but that was found to be wrong and aligned with the Bible.
https://www.seeker.com/in-the-beginning-the-universe-was-a-liquid-1765141247.html

There was a time when Science was in opposition to any water being on early earth. Now Science aligns with the Bible.
https://www.quantamagazine.org/fossil-discoveries-challenge-ideas-about-earths-start-20180122/

These two insights alone are enough to start two brand new topics

What Science says today can change by new discoveries and has many time as shown in the examples above.

I vastly disagree. Example:

I'm a 'BigFootist'. And I claim 'I saw Big Foot in the forest while camping yesterday.'

You don't mean to tell me it is also 'your burden' to disprove me, do you?

Now this example:

You are a 'theist'. You are claiming that LOL leads directly to Yahweh.

You don't mean to tell me it is also 'my burden' to disprove your claim, do you?

This shows you are the one not understanding. I am not giving you the burden to disprove me. I want your position on the things I listed.

My point was not to use the bacteria flagellum as an example to argue your position. It does not demonstrate 'irreducible complexity'. You can keep stripping this form down, further and further, until it is very simple.

I never claimed 'irreducible complexity'. You continue to make unfound assumptions.

I also acknowledged long ago, that the 'driving force' remains unknown. I remain skeptical to all asserted theistic claims for creationism, until such evidence ties the connection to a specific conclusion.

I'm sorry to say, yet again, that to conclude Yahweh to such unknowns demonstrates no other process but fallacious reasoning.

You are making a straw man...albeit perhaps unintentional.

'Can you think of a better answer? No? Therefore my specific God.' 'God exists because we do not yet know some things.'

Not my claim.

I hate to state the obvious, but think about the many things in history's past, in which were directly attributed to god/gods, using this exact same type of reasoning, which conclusions are now instead attributed to natural processes, due to later bonafide discovery.

Please name for me one discovery, where we 'know' the answer and it concludes a documented supernatural premise/conclusion?

See above.

Again, you are playing right into my response directly above (i.e.):

'I'm sorry to say, yet again, that to conclude Yahweh to such unknowns demonstrates no other process but fallacious reasoning.

'Can you think of a better answer? No? Therefore my specific God.' 'God exists because we do not yet know some things.'

Straw man.

/So let me get this straight? You want me to assert a conclusion for something in which no one has yet to prove, which would provide enough demonstration to generate a Nobel Prize?

NOPE.

Oncedeceived · Sep 15, 2018

Eight Foot Manchild said:
I don't know how you can still be so utterly confused about what I believe. I've explained it at least half a dozen times at this point. Could you please put down van Tillian apologetic script for a few minutes and at least pretend you're talking to a real person?

Over and over again, I have made it clear - that it is only the descriptions of reality - not reality itself - that derive from minds.

I am not confused at all, you are asserting that the laws of logic are only descriptions of realty...I am saying that they can't be. They are universal and if they were just invented by humans they might not all be the same and that is not possible. You are making claims without any evidence that this is true, in fact, the laws of logic have to be absolute truth and universal to be logical at all.

A=A. E=MC². Etc. I deny only the immutability of these labels. Not the reality which they describe. The universe would continue to operate exactly as it does without these labels.

So just to be absolutely clear, so I don't have to go over this again, say it with me one more time - I deny the immutability of labels, not the reality they describe.

And just to be absolutely clear the laws of logic are not just LABELS. They allow labels to be constructed.

If you come back at me again accusing me of denying 'the absolute truth of the laws of logic' (to use your words), I will be forced to conclude that your worldview does not allow you to distinguish between reality and statements about reality. That really would be a shame.

Statements about reality can not be made without the presuppositions for absolute truth and the universal principals they are founded upon, which without we could make no sense of reality at all.

And in my worldview, reality itself is unchanging, with no need or use for supernatural agency.

My worldview contains fewer assumptions, and I don't have to trust that an omnipotent cosmic mind won't reorder or destroy all of reality, with no means of reliably predicting when or how that might manifest. Mine is better.

Simply untrue. You make assumptions about the universe's uniformity, its intelligibility, its order and its purpose. You make assumptions about the laws of logic, claiming you are right and 'better' when you claim that the logic you use is not absolute, nor universal. At best, in your worldview all we have is some opinions about your truth and my truth.

Sure.

It's grounded in vacuous naked assertions that collapse under the slightest scrutiny. I have no need or use for it.[/QUOTE]I can't be sure from your posts how much scrutiny you have taken to determine what you seem to believe.

Oncedeceived · Sep 15, 2018

Eight Foot Manchild said:
I don't know how you can still be so utterly confused about what I believe. I've explained it at least half a dozen times at this point. Could you please put down van Tillian apologetic script for a few minutes and at least pretend you're talking to a real person?

Over and over again, I have made it clear - that it is only the descriptions of reality - not reality itself - that derive from minds.

A=A. E=MC². Etc. I deny only the immutability of these labels. Not the reality which they describe. The universe would continue to operate exactly as it does without these labels.

So just to be absolutely clear, so I don't have to go over this again, say it with me one more time - I deny the immutability of labels, not the reality they describe.

If you come back at me again accusing me of denying 'the absolute truth of the laws of logic' (to use your words), I will be forced to conclude that your worldview does not allow you to distinguish between reality and statements about reality. That really would be a shame.

And in my worldview, reality itself is unchanging, with no need or use for supernatural agency.

My worldview contains fewer assumptions, and I don't have to trust that an omnipotent cosmic mind won't reorder or destroy all of reality, with no means of reliably predicting when or how that might manifest. Mine is better.

Sure.

It's grounded in vacuous naked assertions that collapse under the slightest scrutiny. I have no need or use for it.

I would also like responses to the questions I asked in my post which you ignored.

'Knowledge' of Existence

Well-Known Member

His Supreme Holy Correctfulness

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

His Supreme Holy Correctfulness

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

His Supreme Holy Correctfulness

Senior Veteran

His Supreme Holy Correctfulness

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

His Supreme Holy Correctfulness

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency