Evidence

[LegionOnomaMoi]

But those functional imagining won't show what a person is thinking.

How would you know?

There is no "super duper" cat scan that can show images of what a person is thinking.

Wrong technology. That's not functional imagining.

So If I start thinking of the Pacers beating the Heat in Game 2 of the EC finals, there is no type of imagining that can get that deep in my personal thoughts and say "This person is thinking of X", or "This person is thinking of Y". What you are talking about is a small piece of the pie.

It may be. But at least I know what I am talking about. "I, being poor, have only my dreams", but at least I do not pretend to understand logical arguments about infinities or possible worlds when I haven't the faintest idea what these mean other than some websites I visit.

I've read the entire New Testament in Greek. I've read a great deal of the Old Testament in Hebrew. I've read Eusebius, Clement, Tertullian, and so many others in Latin and Greek. And I've read G. K. Chesterton, C. S. Lewis, W. L. Craig, N. T. Wright, J. P. Meier, JDG Dunn, Peter Kreeft, and many, many others to try to understand what you so arrogantly profess to know of. You can't read your own bible let alone understand what sciences or scientific research is responsible for the very means you use to proclaim your disdain for "Science", yet you revel in your faith of a collections of texts you know as the bible. Of course, as you can't actually read these, you rely on another set of academics to provide you with translations so you can trash their knowledge as well.

What do you offer, exactly? The knowledge of Jesus Christ Savior you know of only because of the work of the academics you mock?

Well, when I make the claim that the mind controls internal functions of the body, then I will get back to you.

Don't bother. You don't know anything about the scientific topics you speak about, and your knowledge of Christianity is provided for you through academics whose works you disdain. You can't read a single text of the Bible except through a translation academia has provided for you.

 

[Breathe]

May be. This may not be the thread to do this but may I ask what made you transition from Atheist to theist?

Spiritual experiences, and a few of them; I was resistant to the idea for quite a while, and when I came out as a theist, I lost friends. Not going through bad times or looking for something to cling to or anything like that.

Probably not the best place to discuss this though...

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

How would you know?

You tell me if what I said is true or false.

Wrong technology. That's not functional imagining.

But what I said was correct.

It may be. But at least I know what I am talking about. "I, being poor, have only my dreams", but at least I do not pretend to understand logical arguments about infinities or possible worlds when I haven't the faintest idea what these mean other than some websites I visit.

Once again, the above statement doesn't have ANYTHING to do with what I said. And once again, instead of attacking my knowledge, attack the argument. Its the same argument....I mean, it isn't as if I am uncharacterizing the arguments. The arguments are what they are. They are on the table. The problem is, you can't refute the arguments. But that is your fault, not mines.

I've read the entire New Testament in Greek. I've read a great deal of the Old Testament in Hebrew. I've read Eusebius, Clement, Tertullian, and so many others in Latin and Greek. And I've read G. K. Chesterton, C. S. Lewis, W. L. Craig, N. T. Wright, J. P. Meier, JDG Dunn, Peter Kreeft, and many, many others to try to understand what you so arrogantly profess to know of. You can't read your own bible let alone understand what sciences or scientific research is responsible for the very means you use to proclaim your disdain for "Science", yet you revel in your faith of a collections of texts you know as the bible. Of course, as you can't actually read these, you rely on another set of academics to provide you with translations so you can trash their knowledge as well.

Once again, what does this have to do with anything that I said. It is as if you are having your own little discussion going on lol. But nevertheless, you are right...I do have faith in the bible, absolutely. But I believe the bible is a reliable source. Its never lied to me before, but text books have. And guess what, they were BOTH written by man.

What do you offer, exactly? The knowledge of Jesus Christ Savior you know of only because of the work of the academics you mock?

I accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. I believe his Resurrection is a historical fact. He walked this very earth that we live on......he lived, he died, and was raised on the third day.

Don't bother. You don't know anything about the scientific topics you speak about, and your knowledge of Christianity is provided for you through academics whose works you disdain. You can't read a single text of the Bible except through a translation academia has provided for you.

LMAO

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

We're getting there. Its still in its infancy but we're getting there. I would give you a link but I haven't made the required 15 posts yet to do so.

Ok, when it gets there, let me know...meanwhile, lets chill :beach:

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Ok, when it gets there, let me know...meanwhile, lets chill :beach:

I didn't have 15 posts last time so I couldn't give you the link but here it is.

Scientists Can (Almost) Read Your Mind, Turn Thoughts into Movies | TIME.com

This is honestly why I love science so much.

Impossible? Give us a week.

 

[sonofdad]

See the dog analogy I laid on Legion. Are you the dog, or are you the body? Your brain is still in the bed within the human body...but your mind is somewhere else. So who are you, the dog, or the body?

This analogy would work if personality had nothing to do with the brain, but rather this distinct mind you have yet to demonstrate. You make the assumption that there's a distinct mind and then use an analogy which depends on a distinct mind existing to demonstrate it. You have yet to demonstrate the distinct mind.

As Legion pointed out and you refused to address is that brain damage can greatly affect personality.
Memories and knowledge exist in the brain. Unless you transfered my brain to the dog's body I would just be a dog, with dog thoughts and dog memories and it wouldn't be me.

Thank you for giving me your OPINION, but that sure as heck isn't science. But dont worry, science hasn't been able to explain that for us yet, we have to wait a little longer while science jury deliberates on the matter (no pun intended).

Where do you think the matter that makes up your body came from?

Thanks for once again giving me your opinion. Mind if I give you mines? Well, I think life came from a supernatural Creator. You see, I find it hard to believe that consciousness can come from non-consciousness or life can come from non-life. I believe the opposite, actually. That is my opinion.

Did God not create life from non-living materials?

Well, there are only two possibilities.....either the origin of life came from life, or the origin of life came from non-life. I never took me long to decipher which one makes more logical sense. But that is just me.

If the origin of life is another life, then the first life's origin would be the origin of life and we would just be yet another life.
Logically there is one possibility. Life originated from something that isn't life.

Point well taken. So on your view, there is no free will. Gotcha.

I was playing into your appeal to morailty, I don't really know if there is such a thing as free will. If there isn't, there's nothing I can do about it.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

This analogy would work if personality had nothing to do with the brain, but rather this distinct mind you have yet to demonstrate.

Wait a minute, huh?

You make the assumption that there's a distinct mind and then use an analogy which depends on a distinct mind existing to demonstrate it. You have yet to demonstrate the distinct mind.

I could of swore thats what I did...

As Legion pointed out and you refused to address is that brain damage can greatly affect personality.

So what? That is like saying car damage can greatly affect a persons mobility. Of course it does. If you get inside a car you decide where the car goes, how fast it goes, etc. If the car pops a tire, it won't run as smoothly as it once did, and it will effect the quality of your mobility. But once you get out the car you are no longer bound by its restrictions, and you can go where you please (theoretically speaking). That is the same way I believe the mind works. It is restricted by the physical brain and will come and go as the brain does. No problems here.

Memories and knowledge exist in the brain. Unless you transfered my brain to the dog's body I would just be a dog, with dog thoughts and dog memories and it wouldn't be me.

Actually, you wouldn't even be the dog. If your brain is not transferred to the dog, then you can't be the dog. The dogs thoughts only pertain to him/her. If there is a possible world where such a thing could possibly occur, then your brain cannot be used to explain the origins of your mind, because if the mind relied on the brain so much, in order to retain your memories in the dog, your brain would have to follow. But this is clearly not the case here.

Where do you think the matter that makes up your body came from?

God...that was easy.

Did God not create life from non-living materials?

Yes.

If the origin of life is another life, then the first life's origin would be the origin of life and we would just be yet another life.

Well, I meant the origin of life on earth.

Logically there is one possibility. Life originated from something that isn't life.

No evidence supporting it.

I was playing into your appeal to morailty, I don't really know if there is such a thing as free will. If there isn't, there's nothing I can do about it.

Fair enough

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

I didn't have 15 posts last time so I couldn't give you the link but here it is.

Scientists Can (Almost) Read Your Mind, Turn Thoughts into Movies | TIME.com

This is honestly why I love science so much.

Impossible? Give us a week.

Good luck on that one boss man )(

 

[sonofdad]

I could of swore thats what I did...

I must have missed it.
You said there was a mind distinct and non-dependent on any particular brain.
Then you made an analogy where that distinct mind would be transferred to a dog, which would not work if there is no distinct mind.
You have not demonstrated your premise.

So what? That is like saying car damage can greatly affect a persons mobility. Of course it does. If you get inside a car you decide where the car goes, how fast it goes, etc. If the car pops a tire, it won't run as smoothly as it once did, and it will effect the quality of your mobility. But once you get out the car you are no longer bound by its restrictions, and you can go where you please (theoretically speaking). That is the same way I believe the mind works. It is restricted by the physical brain and will come and go as the brain does. No problems here.

I believe that you believe it, I am asking you to demonstrate it.

Actually, you wouldn't even be the dog.

That's why I ended with "and it wouldn't be me". It would still be some dog, and I would still be me.

If your brain is not transferred to the dog, then you can't be the dog. The dogs thoughts only pertain to him/her. If there is a possible world where such a thing could possibly occur, then your brain cannot be used to explain the origins of your mind, because if the mind relied on the brain so much, in order to retain your memories in the dog, your brain would have to follow. But this is clearly not the case here.

I read this 5 times and I am no closer to making sense of it.

Yes.

And according to you, GOD is not a physical lifeform.
So you accept that life came from non-life?

No evidence supporting it.

That doesn't seem to bother you when it comes to your own beliefs.

But
Abiogenesis. ABIOGENESIS.
Here's a link, click it, read it, try to understand it, ask questions if you don't. Then question it. There is some pretty good evidence.
And no, the whole process has not yet been observed, the theories are not complete nor are they supposed to be definitive answers for how this line of life DID originate, they are plausible explanations of how life can originate from non-living materials.
The gaps will surely make you dismiss the whole thing in favor of GOD, but keep in mind that just a few decades ago we basically had no idea, now we know how a kind self replicating molecules can form among other things.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

You tell me if what I said is true or false.

False.

Once again, the above statement doesn't have ANYTHING to do with what I said.

Yes it does. Because your idea of debate is to make statements about things you don't understand, and when people argue that you are incorrect you have a short list of responses:
1) Repeat the same thing again
2) Claim the counter-argument is "absurd" even though you neither understand it, nor understand the argument you offered
3) Claim that X argument cannot be defeated because...well, because it can't.

This remains true even when a cosmologist tells you what two cosmologist have actually concluded vs. what you think they have and claim they have. There is no way to show you that you are wrong because either you will not admit that the evidence you are relying on (whether it is physics or mathematics or biology or neuroscience) is actually an incorrect interpretation of real research or is just wrong,

or

you will claim that other things hold true regardless and they cannot be disproved because no matter what people who understand logic, physics, infinities, etc. say, your fundamental lack of familiarity with basic logic entitles you to determine what is and isn't logical no matter what anybody says.

And once again, instead of attacking my knowledge, attack the argument.

I attacked your argument about infinities in several ways, from showing how actual infinities occur, to what Hilbert's hotel actually mean, and even giving you links that counter the argument you use. So far as I know, you didn't even bother to read them, and you certainly didn't comment on them.

You have made claims about what is absurd that fundamentally conflict with widely known findings that have been repeatedly verified experimentally for almost a century. Every single argument gets one of the same set of responses.

But I believe the bible is a reliable source

How would you know? You've never read it. You've only read what academics have determined it says (more or less).

Its never lied to me before

Because you refuse any evidence that would counter it. Evolution is wrong because you will call something a dog even if it looks like a fox, or a wolf, but a cat is a cat because it has to be. It is impossible to provide you with evidence that macroevolution occurs because you will simply assert that whatever changes we can see and observe, from genetic to phenotypic, are somehow not "macroevolution". Which is why the genetic variance between everything you call a "dog" doesn't matter, nor do the various species any taxonomy, because whatever you want to claim about the evidence you do. I show you how a fox can become more like another group of species than its own, and you tell me its because they are all dogs. You give no evidence, supply no reason, you simply dogmatically reassert the same nonsense over and over again.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

I must have missed it.
You said there was a mind distinct and non-dependent on any particular brain.

It is dependent on the brain as far providing a thinking mechanism for the human body, but it is not dependent upon the brain as far as its absolute origins.

Then you made an analogy where that distinct mind would be transferred to a dog, which would not work if there is no distinct mind.
You have not demonstrated your premise.

Did you mean distinct brain?

I believe that you believe it, I am asking you to demonstrate it.

I did, based on the analogy it can be concluded that you go wherever your mind goes, not where ever your brain/body goes. So back to the original question; are you the dog, or are you the body on the bed?

That's why I ended with "and it wouldn't be me". It would still be some dog, and I would still be me.

The question was if you retained your thoughts but was in the body of the dog, would you be the dog, or would you be the body on the bed. The "me" you are referring to, is that the mind or the brain?

I read this 5 times and I am no closer to making sense of it.

My point was/is that the brain cannot be used to explain the origins of the mind, because in the analogy, your brain is one place and your mind is another place. An external cause is needed to explain consciousness.

And according to you, GOD is not a physical lifeform.
So you accept that life came from non-life?

God is life.....so life has always existed. He created other life........which is contingent. Problem?

That doesn't seem to bother you when it comes to your own beliefs.

There are many arguments throughout history that has been and continues to be used to support theism....pick one.

But
Abiogenesis. ABIOGENESIS.
Here's a link, click it, read it, try to understand it, ask questions if you don't. Then question it. There is some pretty good evidence.
And no, the whole process has not yet been observed, the theories are not complete nor are they supposed to be definitive answers for how this line of life DID originate, they are plausible explanations of how life can originate from non-living materials.

Unproven theories, just like I expected.

The gaps will surely make you dismiss the whole thing in favor of GOD, but keep in mind that just a few decades ago we basically had no idea, now we know how a kind self replicating molecules can form among other things.

I maintain that you cannot get consciousness from matter. I doubt any evidence will ever prove otherwise.

 

[Ouroboros]

Wolf is a kind of dog? I guess cat is a kind of dog too. This dogmatism is catastrophic. LOL!

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Yes it does. Because your idea of debate is to make statements about things you don't understand, and when people argue that you are incorrect you have a short list of responses:
1) Repeat the same thing again
2) Claim the counter-argument is "absurd" even though you neither understand it, nor understand the argument you offered
3) Claim that X argument cannot be defeated because...well, because it can't.

So basically what you are saying is I'm am not worth the bother because of the above 3 reasons. You could of left it at that...instead, I have to respond to this googly moogly below me lol.

This remains true even when a cosmologist tells you what two cosmologist have actually concluded vs. what you think they have and claim they have.

The only thing cosmologists can tell me is that the universe began to exist, which is what theists have claimed since Gen 1:1 and it is good to know that science has finally confirmed what we have been saying for 3,000+ years.

There is no way to show you that you are wrong because either you will not admit that the evidence you are relying on (whether it is physics or mathematics or biology or neuroscience) is actually an incorrect interpretation of real research or is just wrong,

I am wrong? I am wrong for claiming...

1. That everything that begins to exist has a cause
2. That all possible necessary truths exist in reality
3. That the brain is not the origin of the mind
4. That actual infinities cannot exist in reality

Those are all facts.....I can't help it if you have to convince yourself that those things are not true because you don't like their implications.

you will claim that other things hold true regardless and they cannot be disproved because no matter what people who understand logic, physics, infinities, etc. say, your fundamental lack of familiarity with basic logic entitles you to determine what is and isn't logical no matter what anybody says.

Like?

I attacked your argument about infinities in several ways, from showing how actual infinities occur, to what Hilbert's hotel actually mean, and even giving you links that counter the argument you use. So far as I know, you didn't even bother to read them, and you certainly didn't comment on them.

Newsflash.......if you are an infinite distance away from something, you will never reach it. Now to me, that seems to be a given. But you, so quick to refute a logically valid point, wants to make all of these ridiculous points...where it gets to the point where its like....why bother?

You have made claims about what is absurd that fundamentally conflict with widely known findings that have been repeatedly verified experimentally for almost a century. Every single argument gets one of the same set of responses.

Because no matter what you say, the fact will always remain

How would you know? You've never read it. You've only read what academics have determined it says (more or less).

So if you believe the bible isn't reliable, how would you know? You are not a biblical scholar/new testament scholar....how would you know if your position is a good one........you've only read what academics have determined.

Because you refuse any evidence that would counter it. Evolution is wrong because you will call something a dog even if it looks like a fox, or a wolf, but a cat is a cat because it has to be.

I refuse what biologists that presuppose a theory tells me, yes. Have you ever seen a dog produce a non-dog? Or ANY animal produce a animal different than what it is?? No, you've never seen it. Yet you believe it.

It is impossible to provide you with evidence that macroevolution occurs because you will simply assert that whatever changes we can see and observe, from genetic to phenotypic, are somehow not "macroevolution". Which is why the genetic variance between everything you call a "dog" doesn't matter, nor do the various species any taxonomy, because whatever you want to claim about the evidence you do. I show you how a fox can become more like another group of species than its own, and you tell me its because they are all dogs. You give no evidence, supply no reason, you simply dogmatically reassert the same nonsense over and over again.

Dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats, sheep produce sheep.

 

[sonofdad]

The question was if you retained your thoughts but was in the body of the dog, would you be the dog, or would you be the body on the bed. The "me" you are referring to, is that the mind or the brain?

How would you transfer my thoughts to the dog?

I did, based on the analogy it can be concluded that you go wherever your mind goes, not where ever your brain/body goes. So back to the original question; are you the dog, or are you the body on the bed?

What is the mind? Define it. Demonstrate it. Then your analogy might have some kind of relevance to the real world.

Your premise is: the mind is not a product of the brain, thoughts are a product of the mind.
Right?
Demonstrate your premise.

God is life.....so life has always existed. He created other life........which is contingent. Problem?

Again, how do you know that?

There are many arguments throughout history that has been and continues to be used to support theism....pick one.

I have encountered a lot of them. Most of them are based on ignorance.

Unproven theories, just like I expected.

If you believe God did it, then you can think of it as humans trying to figure out the mechanics behind God's magic trick. I would think you'd be interested in knowing how god does what he does.
If you just want an absolute answer that is based on no knowledge whatsoever, then sure you want religion, not science.

 

[michel]

I'll preface this by stating that I am atheistic. However, I have a very religious friend, and I am trying to see things from his perspective. What I am trying to understand, at a very basic level, is how someone can believe in a supernatural deity. There simply is no credible evidence to support the existence of one. Arguments like, "Well, then, where did all of this come from?" don't work because all they do is make the situation even more complicated. What created the creator? Then, it seems to me that tremendous amounts of (for lack of a better word) insanity are constructed around this belief in a mystic being (or beings). There are entire doctrines, entire codes of ethics, entire books that claim to have all the answers, but they are vague and antiquated. Even within the same religious tree, people can't agree on what they are supposed to mean. How can anyone view something so ambiguous, be it the Quran or the Bible or any other text, as a legitimate source of information or even guidance? Why is it that new religions, such as Scientology, are met with such disgust even though, objectively speaking, they are no more absurd? I mean no disrespect. I simply do not understand.

Because there is no need for new religions - there are plenty of well established ones!!!

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

So basically what you are saying is I'm am not worth the bother

I did not say that. You repeatedly claim that you have "arguments" others won't address. I was stating that they have been addressed over and over again, but that your responses make any counter-argument "wrong" because of the ways in which you "debate". The point is not that you are not "worth the bother", but to clarify that when you ask "attack the argument" that this has been done countless times but it doesn't matter. There is no way to attack the argument such that you can ever admit you are wrong about anything. Evidence doesn't matter, you level of knowledge doesn't matter, even your own familiarity with your own arguments don't matter. That is the point I made. Not that you aren't worth the effort, but that you create a situation in which you ask for a counter-argument but allow no possible way in which one can be presented. Not because you are correct, or even because you understand your own arguments. Simply because you will use one or more of the three methods I outlined to ensure that any counter-argument is deemed wrong.

You could of left it at that...instead, I have to respond to this googly moogly below me lol.

You poor soul. Has it perchance occurred to you that I do not respond to your posts for your sake? That perhaps many of my responses are so that others who may not be familiar with some aspect of your argument can have it be placed in context (as I would want others to do for me)? Your blind dogmatic refusal to think critically doesn't make you somehow special, nor does my attention to your refusal to engage in the very logic you promote make may anything special. But this is a public forum, where anybody can see whatever is posted. And I would like to offer what I have to say against your approach alongside of what you do.

That is all you are to me. And I'm sure I'm less to you.

The only thing cosmologists can tell me is that the universe began to exist

No, the only thing cosmologists can do is write things that you interpret. The fact that you haven't any clue about cosmology, physics, or anything that would make your interpretation significant or meaningful. Despite this, you have disagreed about what actual cosmologists have told you.

which is what theists have claimed since Gen 1:1

which you can't read

and it is good to know that science has finally confirmed what we have been saying for 3,000+ years.

Which isn't true.

I am wrong? I am wrong for claiming...

1. That everything that begins to exist has a cause
2. That all possible necessary truths exist in reality
3. That the brain is not the origin of the mind
4. That actual infinities cannot exist in reality

Yes.

Those are all facts.....I can't help it if you have to convince yourself that those things are not true because you don't like their implications

What you cannot help is that when arguments against your views are addressed, you cannot respond other to say "that's absurd", "that's obvious", or "what?"

You simply do not know much about any argument you put forth. Which wouldn't be a problem were it not for you dogmatic insistence that you are correct despite misunderstanding your own arguments, let alone actually addressing counter-arguments.

Like?

Quantum physics. I gave you at least an entire post and got nothing. I gave you links and got nothing. All you can do is parrot the same words you've heard:

if you are an infinite distance away from something, you will never reach it.

The fact that this was a problem in ancient Greece and has long since been solved so that Lewis Carroll (Charles Ludwig Dodgson) made a parody of it a century ago does not stop you from being confused by problems that stumped philosophers before algebra existed.

Now to me, that seems to be a given.

I'm sure. But if you would study more and parrot less, you might find that much that you think is a "given" is not.

So if you believe the bible isn't reliable, how would you know? You are not a biblical scholar/new testament scholar....how would you know if your position is a good one........you've only read what academics have determined.

Well let's see. I've read the texts used in whatever translation you rely on. I know about the manuscripts upon which they are based. I know something of textual criticism (quite a bit actually). And you have absolutely no idea about any of this.

I refuse what biologists that presuppose a theory tells me, yes. Have you ever seen a dog produce a non-dog?

Yes. And the way you get around this is by calling foxes and wolves "dogs".

 

[cottage]

And my point was either something exists necessarily, or something exists contingently. It is only when you make the distinction between the two that you can understand the argument.

But that is abundantly clear and it is not disputed - certainly not by me! In fact I believe I gave a clear explanation in that respect and, in addition, I also gave an explanation of the further distinction that is to be made viz the (anti-sceptical) necessary conditions for existence.

Right; and I said numbers exist necessarily. There is no possible world at which numbers do not exist.

That isn’t quite correct. Objects such as God or worlds might or might not have existence, but while the a priori concepts of quantity, number, and geometry obtain in all possible worlds, there need be no objects corresponding to those concepts.Numbers and triangles are not ontological entities. A triangle will necessarily have its three angles, if it is to be a triangle, but there need be no existent triangles, and similarly 3 x 4 will always be the equal of 7, whether or not there is anything anywhere to which that calculation can apply. In sum, numbers are a priori concepts; matters of fact are empirical hypotheses, and everything else – God, souls, transcendent reality etc, is just metaphysics.

But it isn't logically possible for a female to be a male.

Well of course! It is true by definition! But it doesn’t follow from the definition that males and females must exist. And, to return to the matter-in-hand, nor does it follow from ‘God is a necessary being’ that such an object exists necessarily.

Committed to the principal? So If I say “It is possible for there to be a lawyer in China named “Cheng”, how am I committed to anything other than admitting that it is possible?

There may indeed be a lawyer in China by the name of Cheng, and it is just as possible that there is not. But if God’s necessary existence is to be settled in by a similar test of possible experience then we have an absurdity.

I agree, that just because something is possible doesn’t mean it is necessary. But based on the nature of necessity, if it IS possible for something to be necessary, then that “thing” must be necessary, because if it isn’t necessary, it wouldn’t even be possible for it to be necessary.

Well no, because if a thing is necessary then it cannot be a possible thing, by the very definition of the term. And it is self-contradictory to say necessity includes possibility, which is contingent existence defined. So to say ‘if it is possible for something to be necessary…’ demonstrates not its necessity but its possibility. And to say ’it wouldn’t even be possible for it to be necessary’ is just repeating the same error. It amounts to saying that God is possibly necessary and therefore he is necessary. But if he is possibly necessary then he is only a possible being, and thus we have a contradiction. And yet we are not logically constrained by the contrary argument, for we are able to say possibly there is no necessary being, which isn’t self-contradictory. And of course if it is possible that there is no necessary being then it is demonstrated that there is no Necessary Being

How is it not possible for God to exist necessarily?

God is either necessary or he is not, and arguing from or to possibility demonstrates the latter. Also, there is no self-contradiction in stating ‘There is no God', no matter how many attributes or superlatives are added to the concept, including that of absolute necessity.

You are a scholar and a gentleman

And you are too kind, thank you.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

But that is abundantly clear and it is not disputed - certainly not by me! In fact I believe I gave a clear explanation in that respect and, in addition, I also gave an explanation of the further distinction that is to be made viz the (anti-sceptical) necessary conditions for existence.

So, what is the problem here?

That isn’t quite correct. Objects such as God or worlds might or might not have existence,

Wait a minute, so numbers don't exist necessarily?? Name me a possible world at which numbers don't exist. Second, if it is possible for God's existence to be of necessity, then there ISN'T possible for such a being's existence to NOT be possible.

but while the a priori concepts of quantity, number, and geometry obtain in all possible worlds, there need be no objects corresponding to those concepts.

But yes it does. If you are thinking of at least one possible world at which numbers don't exist, then what is the corresponding number to that possible world.......the number 1.

Numbers and triangles are not ontological entities.

They are abstract objects. Objects that are not material or spatial, but they exists as merely concepts. They cannot cause anything.

A triangle will necessarily have its three angles, if it is to be a triangle, but there need be no existent triangles, and similarly 3 x 4 will always be the equal of 7, whether or not there is anything anywhere to which that calculation can apply. In sum, numbers are a priori concepts; matters of fact are empirical hypotheses, and everything else – God, souls, transcendent reality etc, is just metaphysics.

And metaphysics is what is needed when we search for an explanation to explain the existence of contingent beings.

Well of course! It is true by definition! But it doesn’t follow from the definition that males and females must exist. And, to return to the matter-in-hand, nor does it follow from ‘God is a necessary being’ that such an object exists necessarily.

The second premise is it is POSSIBLE for God to a necessary being. All possible necessary beings must exist in reality. If it is possible for something to exist necessarily, then that thing must exist necessary, due to the nature of necessity. So as long as God's existence is even possible (which I maintain that it is), then it follows that God must in fact exist.

There may indeed be a lawyer in China by the name of Cheng, and it is just as possible that there is not. But if God’s necessary existence is to be settled in by a similar test of possible experience then we have an absurdity.

I don't understand the parallel between the two.

Well no, because if a thing is necessary then it cannot be a possible thing, by the very definition of the term.

Cot, what are you talking about here? If something is necessary it CAN be possible, either possibly true or possibly false.

And it is self-contradictory to say necessity includes possibility, which is contingent existence defined. So to say ‘if it is possible for something to be necessary…’ demonstrates not its necessity but its possibility.

Right, it demonstrates its possibility to be necessary!!! It can't be both necessary and not possible, and necessary and possible. For example, it is not possible for yours or my existence to be necessarily true. If it was possible for our existence to be necessarily true, then it would have to in fact be necessarily true. To say "It is possible for X to necessarily exist, but X doesn't exist", that is a incoherent statement because if something has the possibility to be necessarily true, it can't be contingently false at the same time.

And to say ’it wouldn’t even be possible for it to be necessary’ is just repeating the same error. It amounts to saying that God is possibly necessary and therefore he is necessary. But if he is possibly necessary then he is only a possible being, and thus we have a contradiction.

Ok, let me give an example. First off you mentioned above that 3 x 4 equal to 7. Now, this is a necessary truth, right? Ok....so imagine this very difficult mathematical equation that no mathematician has been able to solve yet. It has plagued mathematicians for centuries. Now, at this point, it hasn't been solved yet. But despite the fact that we don't know how to solve this problem yet, the equation's solution is still a necessary truth, right? Now, if we solve the problem tomorrow, the answer to the problem is necessarily true, right? Just like 3 x 4 = 7. But the truth value of the problem was either necessarily true or necessarily false regardless of how ignorant we were of what it is, or how much knowledge we have on what it is. Our knowledge of the solution doesn't change the necessity of whatever the solution is.

Now considering the Ontological Argument, we start off from a neutral state, we don't know whether God exists or not....but based on the nature of necessity, we are saying that if it is POSSIBLE for God to exist, he would exist necessarily. Just like if it is possible for the solution to the problem is 1423958645, then this answer is necessarily true.

And yet we are not logically constrained by the contrary argument, for we are able to say possibly there is no necessary being, which isn’t self-contradictory. And of course if it is possible that there is no necessary being then it is demonstrated that there is no Necessary Being

First, if you admit that it is possible for God to exist necessarily, then there is no turning back. You can't logically admit that God's existence is necessary (if he existed), and then also admit that it is also possible that God doesn't exist necessarily. If a necessary being is possible, then this beings non-existence is impossible. Law of excluded middle.

God is either necessary or he is not, and arguing from or to possibility demonstrates the latter. Also, there is no self-contradiction in stating ‘There is no God', no matter how many attributes or superlatives are added to the concept, including that of absolute necessity.

There is a contradiction in stating "There is no God" if you admit that if such a being existed, its existence is necessary.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

I did not say that. You repeatedly claim that you have "arguments" others won't address. I was stating that they have been addressed over and over again, but that your responses make any counter-argument "wrong" because of the ways in which you "debate". The point is not that you are not "worth the bother", but to clarify that when you ask "attack the argument" that this has been done countless times but it doesn't matter.

As far as I can tell, none of my arguments have been successfully refuted.

There is no way to attack the argument such that you can ever admit you are wrong about anything.

When I am wrong, I will admit it.

Evidence doesn't matter, you level of knowledge doesn't matter, even your own familiarity with your own arguments don't matter.

I am very familiar with the kalam cosmological argument and also the ontological argument. Right now I am working on the argument from consciousness and also the argument based on the evidence of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. The latter two I am still "fine tuning", but it is enough to be able to discuss with these folks on here.

That is the point I made. Not that you aren't worth the effort, but that you create a situation in which you ask for a counter-argument but allow no possible way in which one can be presented. Not because you are correct, or even because you understand your own arguments. Simply because you will use one or more of the three methods I outlined to ensure that any counter-argument is deemed wrong.

How about cutting the crap and giving me your best refutation of the four arguments that I mentioned above.

You poor soul. Has it perchance occurred to you that I do not respond to your posts for your sake? That perhaps many of my responses are so that others who may not be familiar with some aspect of your argument can have it be placed in context (as I would want others to do for me)? Your blind dogmatic refusal to think critically doesn't make you somehow special, nor does my attention to your refusal to engage in the very logic you promote make may anything special. But this is a public forum, where anybody can see whatever is posted. And I would like to offer what I have to say against your approach alongside of what you do.

:beach:

No, the only thing cosmologists can do is write things that you interpret. The fact that you haven't any clue about cosmology, physics, or anything that would make your interpretation significant or meaningful. Despite this, you have disagreed about what actual cosmologists have told you.

Open up any modern text book on cosmology and you will find the fact that the universe began to exist. Me and cosmologists at least agree on that part.

which you can't read

Gen 1:1 "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth". Sounds like a universe is being created to me. This was 3,000 years before Gallileo, Einstein, Hubble, Hawking, Penrose, Krauss, and whoever else can be thrown in there. What we have here is a non-science book telling us that the universe began to exist. Hmmmm.

Which isn't true.

It isn't true? I repeat: Gen 1:1 "In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth". This was written 3,000 years ago. It wasn't until early in the 20th century that the universe was discovered to have had a beginning. So yes it is true.

Yes.

I am not surprised.

What you cannot help is that when arguments against your views are addressed, you cannot respond other to say "that's absurd", "that's obvious", or "what?"

If I am absurd for thinking that things cant pop in to being uncaused out of nothing, then leave me to it.

You simply do not know much about any argument you put forth. Which wouldn't be a problem were it not for you dogmatic insistence that you are correct despite misunderstanding your own arguments, let alone actually addressing counter-arguments.

Yeah yeah yeah..spare me, please.

Quantum physics. I gave you at least an entire post and got nothing. I gave you links and got nothing. All you can do is parrot the same words you've heard:

And as I've said, quantum physics is part of NATURE. It is a natural phenomenon, it exist within the universe. The universe had a beginning, and so does quantum physics. Quantum physics cannot be used to explain the origins of its own domain. So quantum physics doesn't help the naturalists. You people like to treat QP as a supernatural entity or something. It is still part of natural science. It is still governed by natural law. Now what part of this don't you understand, I don't know. But before the universe began, neither did QP. I am not really concerned about what happened after the universe began to exist. I am concerned about what is the origin of space, time, and matter, and no scientific explanation can logically be given.

The fact that this was a problem in ancient Greece and has long since been solved so that Lewis Carroll (Charles Ludwig Dodgson) made a parody of it a century ago does not stop you from being confused by problems that stumped philosophers before algebra existed.

If something is an infinite distance away from you, how would you ever reach it by taking one step at a time? Just answer this for me, please. If you can successfully answer this question for me, I will give up on the "infinity" problem.

I'm sure. But if you would study more and parrot less, you might find that much that you think is a "given" is not.

I am not "parrotting", I am using successful arguments. So are the men that I "parrot". The kalam cosmological argument is not WLC's argument, is he parroting by using an argument that was first used hundreds of years before he was born? The same thing with Plantiga and Moreland. Successful arguments are timeless, Legion

Well let's see. I've read the texts used in whatever translation you rely on. I know about the manuscripts upon which they are based. I know something of textual criticism (quite a bit actually). And you have absolutely no idea about any of this.

Are you a bible scholar, yes or no? If not then you are no more "qualified" to speak on such matters than I am.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

How would you transfer my thoughts to the dog?

I am hypothetically speaking.

What is the mind? Define it. Demonstrate it. Then your analogy might have some kind of relevance to the real world.

Tell ya what, look up the word in any dictionary, and we can go with that.

Your premise is: the mind is not a product of the brain, thoughts are a product of the mind.
Right?
Demonstrate your premise.

The analogy demonstrated it. If the mind is a product of the brain then in order for you to retain your thoughts in the body of the dog, your brain would have to follow.

Again, how do you know that?

If the kalam cosmological argument is true then I have good reasons to believe such. If you think it is false, explain why.

I have encountered a lot of them. Most of them are based on ignorance.

Which one?

If you believe God did it, then you can think of it as humans trying to figure out the mechanics behind God's magic trick. I would think you'd be interested in knowing how god does what he does.

The only question that really makes my head hurt is the question of "How can God just exist". How can God be eternal? How can God not have a cause for his existence?

If you just want an absolute answer that is based on no knowledge whatsoever, then sure you want religion, not science.

lmao that was kind of funny