Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I want to nom nom nom.I believe he already gave the example of giant invisible immaterial marshmallows.
It sure sounds like he's saying that certain standards that allow the possibility of a deity through let a whole lot of other things through (that the people who already believe in the god they're trying to prove would reject).
I believe he already gave the example of giant invisible immaterial marshmallows.
Allegedly. I'd ask you for evidence or rationale to support this claim, but we all know that you've never once answered this request.stuff and nonsense = is it not entirely absurd to accept that the earth,mountains,sun and stars be all contained within the narrow space of the human skull.We can only laugh at such nonsense and repeat that the brain is not the mind. It is a bit of nerve-stuff. We are able to see things as lying outside each other and events as happening after each other only because there is in us something which itself is not in space or time
Allegedly. I'd ask you for evidence or rationale to support this claim, but we all know that you've never once answered this request.
Impulsively? Nonsense. Materialism has justified itself countless times with things such as vaccines, computers, and the International Space Station - none of these would exist if science and empiricism didn't work. Yet they do work, over and over, which is why, for all your blustering, science will win.yet such is the intellectual degradation of mankind that it irritably denounces this truth as illusory and impulsively upholds the error of materialism as truth !
Allegedly. You assert that matter doesn't exist, so do you have any evidence to corroborate your claim?Its existence is a bluff. Matter thus becomes a merely illegitimate entity in our explanation of the world,a fiction that works quite well for the purposes of practical life but becomes meaningless for the purposes of philosophical truth. When such an erroneous notion is seen for what it is it will simply vanish from one's understanding and be regarded no more
Atoms are matter, and atoms compose all the solids, liquids, and gases (and others) that make up our world. Do you really disbelieve the existence of atoms? Because the evidence is kinda undeniable:Impulsively? Nonsense. Materialism has justified itself countless times with things such as vaccines, computers, and the International Space Station - none of these would exist if science and empiricism didn't work. Yet they do work, over and over, which is why, for all your blustering, science will win.
For nobody has ever seen matter,nobody has ever handled it and nobody has ever known where to detect its presence.
Allegedly. Can you substantiate this claim? You'll have to explain what you mean when you say science "dematerialised matter".not I but science itself says so since it dematerialised matter
So what's the subtext here? Whatever it is, it's fallacious. When you say:
Anything that allows for something like deities and other difficult to define things can't be true.You're putting a limit on the possibility of reality, simply because you don't like it. But reality is screwy, without even thinking of a deity. Quantum mechanics. Boom. What if someone was like:
Anything that allows for the possibility of things that don't work according to Newtonian physics can't be true.?
Which is a nonsense comparison because it's a self-contradictory statement, which by comparing to God presupposes by its very self-contradictory nature that God is self-contradictory. You know, a sort of loaded statement.
Allegedly. Can you substantiate this claim? You'll have to explain what you mean when you say science "dematerialised matter".
Well, for one, that isn't what I said.
For the question at the end, it depends on whether or not we reject things evaluated by the same standard. It's a matter of consistency.
The issue is that frequently the standards used to assert God's existence admit a lot of things Christians reject.
Other, mutually exclusive deities would be a better example.
It requires about the same amount of apologetic jiggery-pokery to make it as viable
Tick tock...sure - wait for it
Arrogance is unbecoming.not that it or I will be very welcome for the very ground will be cut from beneath your feet so to speak
It sure sounds like you're saying:
Any standard that allows the possibility of a deity is false.
Tick tock...
Arrogance is unbecoming.
sorry if it seems like arrogance but I am hoping to present[irrefutable] evidence as requested - "at one time science stated that the reality behind the world was made of atoms,later it said the real stuff was made of molecules,still later it said things were really electrons.Now it is beginning to stutter something else. Science now confesses it has not reached the last secret of the supposed world-stuff - so science is dealing only with what appears to us,with what is presented to us,but not with what is ultimately hidden beneath all these presentations of atoms,molecules,electrons and what not.Thus the path of human knowledge is a progressive awakening from illusory things that exist but are ultimately unreal"- The Hidden Teaching[Brunton] - more later - twinc
It said none of these things. First we thought matter was a continuum, then we discovered atoms and molecules, then we discovered atoms were made up of protons, neutrons, and electrons, and then we discovered that protons and neutrons are made of quarks and gluons. At no point did anyone say "There, that's it, it goes not further". We've always been quite open to the idea that there could be something more fundamental yet - perhaps sub-quark particles."at one time science stated that the reality behind the world was made of atoms,later it said the real stuff was made of molecules,still later it said things were really electrons.
It's hardly "now confessing" if it's stated it openly from the start.Now it is beginning to stutter something else. Science now confesses it has not reached the last secret of the supposed world-stuff
Nevertheless, whatever atoms are ultimately made up of, they still exist. Discovering that lightening is created by static electricity and not the hammer of Thor doesn't make clouds cease to exist - they're quite obviously still there. Likewise, that we're learning more about atoms doesn't mean atoms themselves don't exist.- so science is dealing only with what appears to us,with what is presented to us,but not with what is ultimately hidden beneath all these presentations of atoms,molecules,electrons and what not.
Like God.Thus the path of human knowledge is a progressive awakening from illusory things that exist but are ultimately unreal"
You act as if this was some dirty secrets that scientists only admitted with much hand-wringing and feet-shuffling. This is simply false. Scientists have always been eager to point to the mysteries that still baffle us, because that's what fascinates us to probe deeper. It was never a secret that, after the discovery of the atom, the nature of the sub-atomic was a complete mystery. This was openly and excitedly discussed.contd:- the old science said the earth is merely a shifting mass of rigid lumps of cold dead matter of indivisible particles called atoms but when asked what was this substance which it called matter,it became somewhat incoherent.It could not explain without admitting that vast unsolved mysteries were involved in the answer
I can only assume you're talking about the paradigm shift from classical to quantum mechanics.and later experimental research into sub-atomic working forced the old science to liquidate itself. With it went the belief in an ultimate matter which exists in space,changes in time and affords a foundation for the universe.The new science now openly declares that atoms are not the last word nor matter the last substance.Atoms have been divided and found to be "waves". Waves of what we ask.Certainly not matter but energy,it replies. A sum of dynamic processes has replaced the old time storehouse of inert substances.
Mhm. So? Again, you act as if this is some great conspiracy, yet scientists are shouting it from the rooftops. There are countless documentaries constantly being made on the discoveries made by science, and the new mysteries these unlock.Thus the scientists who have discarded belief in matter still believe in energy. The latter has become their ultimate stuff. But the energy out of which they would derive the world is as uncertain as matter
Dr. Beauregard lists a number that have been taken seriously in academic literature on the subject: Spinoza's daul-aspect theory, Malebranche's occasionalism, Leibnizian pre-established harmony, identity theory, central state theory, neutral monism, anomalous monism, and about a dozen others. Clearly the matter is far from settled.In another post in this thread, you said "I'm only offering a critique of the materialist theory."
What other theories are there?
Post #33 makes exactly that claim. You quoted the paragraph I wrote, which ended with this:Post #33 does not make that claim. Are you being deliberately obtuse?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?