You link pseudoscience to augment your argument? Fine by me but that not convincing to say the least. After all we are talking about logic as per the OP thread. Using pseudoscience to bolster your argument is accepting illogical idea to bolster what you claim is a logical belief. So you really undermine your OP.
Psuedo science. Neurologist Dr. Andrew Amour and
Dr. Rollin McCraty of the HeartMath Institute are psuedo scientists, are they? OK. That statement on its own exposes more about who you are then maybe you would like.
Yes, I dually used experts in the field to augment my argument. A ploy worthy of a degree of praise, I would say.
But it is not fine by you, is it, as it makes your slur look frivolous.
No, we are not talking about logic here. We are talking about "Faith in Christ is Completely logical" and not what logic is. No more so then we are talking about faith.
Sure, i agree that to use pseudoscience to bolster my argument would be accepting illogical idea
to bolster that my claim is a logical belief, however, the downside is that it is your opinion that it is pseudoscience and, quite frankly, that opinion has no significant value, on this forum, at the very least. In reality they are both experts in their relative field who have support from the good majority of other prominent scientists in those field. In essence, your suggestion that this is pseudo science is dishonest and misleading intended, in the long term, to systematically discredit Christianity. You do yourself no favours.
You put forward the concept in support of your argument. If you never intended to do so you should of never used the point in your argument.
I did not put it forward. That is a duplicitous, baseless assertion. It was not in my argument, it was in my original defence. It is somebody else's words and beliefs. Should you disagree with that person it would be your right to question him about his beliefs and not me. It is no different then my drawing you into question about something that
Werner Heisenberg has said just because you mentioned him in your post. That would be a grossly illogical fallacy, that you are insistent we should avoid.
Opinion is not logically sound so again you are misusing logic but I already know you really have no education in logic or philosophy. You borrow terms and ideas without understanding either.
I post in accordance to my knowledge, belief and experience. To suggest that I use underhanded methods to debate is another ad hominem, yet again, so we will have to skip that fallacious point. Do try and debate the point rather then to insult my intelligence. It is very puerile and belongs in the school yard.
tell a theoretical physicist that opinions are not logical.
No, it is not. That is your opinion and your opinion is unsurprisingly wrong.
You brought up causality which I addressed.
I did not bring it up, it was a part of the post that was used to defend the origin of that knowledge. I am not questioning you, or insisting that
Werner Heisenberg's beliefs are incorrect so you are accountable for his errors. You are being intentionally pernickety because you are losing the scermish. Man up and take it on the chin. It happens to all of us. I know this is true because if you
really think i have no education in logic or philosophy you would not entertain responding to my post.
Sadly, you may believe that you addressed the point, however, I made no point. I quoted Bunyip who made the point, however, you have not addressed his point either. You have tried to use the expertise of others to address it and have failed miserably.
The point of order was causality.
No, it was ñot. The point in order was whether naturalistic laws fail pre-big bang. You have not comprehended what was said.
By bring up a point not related to what I have addressed it is a red herring.
By responding to the point you were attempting to make would have taken the thread of course. It was you who decided to take the topic of the existence of natural laws prior to the big bang into causation, which was not being debated. If there was a red herring then it was all yours.
A red herring does not need to be about honesty. It is a failure in critical thinking and argumentation which you display daily.
What I display Dailey is irrelevant to this topic, that you are trying to take off course. The remark is yet another ad hominem from someone who cannot help but to attack the person when he cannot effectively debate the points of the debate. You are trolling.
If my points were misleading you could easily refute my points but you do not as you have no idea what you are talking about. I never said you were dishonest. Just ignorant and uneducated.
I actually said "which
could have had the effect of misleading me into believing it was something it was not." I didn't. You are not sufficiently educated to achieve that.
Not bias or bigotry. Education in logic and philosophy. The response is the red herring which your lack of education is preventing you from acknowledging.
Hmm, is there an ad hominem in there. Yes, I believe it is, how surprising.
I am not acknowledging it because it is not true.
If it it's OK with you, I take your opinions with a pinch of salt. If you say that I am uneducated then I take the opposite to be true.
Often those that do not understand logic make fallacious statements since they have no formal education in formal arguments and the mental pitfalls of fallacious reasoning as you display daily.
Once again, my daily activities is not a point in this topic of debate. I will not entertain the childish squabbles of "I am more educated then you are" game, but please, feel free to show your true colours. I just put it down to your incessant need to use ad hominem because of your inability to use intellectual debate.
You can think whatever you want about yourself.
Thank you, but I did not need your permission.
This again displays you do not understand logic which you are talking about. Your ego is preventing you from developing you knowledge of logic and philosophy.
More ad hominem
You have yet to point out one fallacy I have uses.
I did not say that you used fallacies, however, be assured that if you do, and if I deem them to be an important infringement, which they rarely are, then I will pull you up on them.
So like all asserted unsubstantiated statements I am dismissing your claims about me due to the combination of ignorance bolstered by ego.
That goes without saying. You would have to concede defeat and that ain't going to happen, not in a million years.
The issue is you think you have knowledge of philosophy and logic.
Well, i think the same of you, only you genuinely only know as much as the messenger tells you and you comprehend much less. I make no such assumption. That I leave to the likes of you, however, what does that have to do with causation. It is merely yet another ad hominem.
This is mistake but since you are ignorant of your mistake you still speak.
More ad hominem
If you know anything about causality you would realize agent causality is part of the concept of God. It breaks God away from naturalist causality.
What I know about causality is irrelevant on this thread. It is not the subject of debate.
I was providing you insight of using correct terminology for arguments for God.
No, you were not. You misread the post and found yourself in a hole you could not dig your way out of. That is the truth of it.
Alas your own ignorance of logic and bigotry has prevented you considering anything I have said.
More ad hominem
If you bothered to break your presupposition of atheists and everyone who has disagrees you would of found out Roderick Chisholm is a proponent for God. Every philosopher I have mentioned with the expectation of Hume argue for God not against God. Sadly your ego ave prevented you from even reading what is posted.
I am no respecter of mankind all the time it contains individuals like yourself, that is carnal in nature. I am a respecter of God, His son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost, who is the testator.
No I am point out your misunderstanding of BB cosmology which you display ignorance of.
My knowledge, like yours and most other people, comes from the mind and mouth of experts in the field. To critique my words is to critique some of the best scientists of resent generations. Professor Stephen Hawkins and Professor Brian Cox are the authors of my knowledge in cosmology. Do you doubt their abilities.
There is no time before time so there is no priori cause in which one can stuff God into.
Unless God is timeless. As he is an eternal entity that would be the case.
No I did not assume. I was providing points regarding agent causality and how these point are used in support of the concept of God.
Then start another debate and stop trying to hijack this one.
The prime mover arguments are arguments for God, hence first cause.
No, it is not. It puts a beginning in eternity.
However since you again demonstrate you do not know what you are talking about you misunderstand what I am talking about.
More ad hominem
If there is no prime mover there is no God. The concept of a prime mover is that of a monotheist God. So go ahead and dismiss the primer mover concept. You only dismiss your argument for a first cause being God.
You are displaying an argument from ignorance. You do not know what you are talking about. A prime mover is only relevant to the causation of the big bang. God existed before that point.
gain you display you have no idea what you are talking about by disparaging the very concept which I first addressed.
Again, more ad hominem
So one posted doesn't understand cosmology then you further this misunderstanding with your own. Am I supposed to be impressed or convinced by this?
Did you assume that to be my intentions?
Incoherent nonsense. There is no time before time. All you have done is taken time, redefined it and placed it before time. Time before time! Sophistry is amazing.
Then you need to address the person who actually said it. Bunyip. You really haven't understood the post, have you?
Unsubstantiated. No one knows if there is an unseen cause giving the impression of an uncaused cause.
You would of learned this if you read anything I have mentioned.
If you had said something knowledgeable I would have latched onto it and added it to my knowledge bank. Thus far all I see is an astute ability for ad hominem.
However you do not so display your own ignorance of QM.
And who does have a complete understanding of QM?
If something is impossible to predict is it due to the failure to identify a cause of an effect.
As I have just written
This is how predictions work. We take known causes and effects applying this knowledge in order to predict a future event. Since we can not identify causes thus can not make prediction this becomes indeterministic which is a primary concept of God.
Those events in QM that do have a cause have unpredictable effects that do not reflect on any naturalistic event where prediction is an exactitude in most cases. Naturalistic laws exist in QM, however, they are grossly inaccurate and unpredictable. According to your logic there is no cases of uncaused causes in QM. That is not necessarily true.
However since you again do not understand what you are talking about you argue against a core principle for the concept of God without realizing it. You just undermined your own first cause argument for God, again.
And to conclude with. More ad hominem
