Faith in Christ is Completely Logical

[Shad]

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.

http://www.ccjm.org/content/74/Suppl_1/S48.full.pdf

Here is the work by Dr. Andrew Amour which does not mentioned one case of transplants and memory transfer. McCraty is a nobody and a quack. His supposed membership to organization are those of a paid membership which you and I can purchase. The International Neurocardiology Network does not exist. Institute of Stress has no membership under his name. American Autonomic Society has a paid membership so rather than inviting qualified members one can just apply for a nice fee. The Pavlovian Society is another paid for membership organization. Association for Applied Psychophysiology and Biofeedback is another paid for membership group. There is only one reference to McCarty and it has nothing to do with your article. McCraty and Hearthmath really says nothing new, outside of any claims of memory transfer which are bogus. Now I admit I was not specific in my points regarding the article. What I considered to be pseudoscience was at the end of the article in which transplant patients had memory transfer or personality changes. This part was an addition made by the author of the article and not in the report by Dr. Andrew Amour. Hence the article quote-mined Amour in order to support it's pseudoscience. You did not fact check what you linked.

.

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.

You are talking about logic when you attempt to prove faith is logical. Remove logical from your OP if you do not want to talk about logic.

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.

So you admit by using pseudoscience, which is logically invalid and unsound, in order to validate the logic of faith in Christ. By the use of illogical views your argument for logic of belief becomes illogical. I discredit you not Christianity. Many Christians here have never made the simple mistakes you have.

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.

You put forward cause and effect. So I addressed this part not the misunderstanding of your later comments. You made positive claims in refuted to other positive claims. This is what I was addressing

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.

Underhanded suggest intention. However I maintain you are not being dishonest or underhanded but are making mistakes which you think are correct. If a person does not know they are mistaken this does not mean they are dishonest. Likewise if a person accepts a lie as a truth they are not being dishonest but are making a mistake.

No, it is not. That is your opinion and your opinion is unsurprisingly wrong.
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.

Causality is part of nature law, if misunderstood by many. I was correcting your views of causality as well as the misunderstand you first addressed. I first tried to correct you and actually provided information for a better argument. However your presupposition you hold of me, atheists and those that disagree with you have prevented you from even considering if information provided is useful or not. You dismissed it out of hand due to your bias.

I "entertained" your post due to your failures in the use of logic. If your logic was sound I would have nothing to say but your logic is unsound so I have pointed it out.

No, it was ñot. The point in order was whether naturalistic laws fail pre-big bang. You have not comprehended what was said.

Which you attempt to link with the first cause argument which is part of naturalistic laws. I understood your errors and corrected you.

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.

You mean your failure to understand causality which is part of naturalistic laws.

I quote "Cause and effect = naturalistic laws. They do not break down at the quantum level, as claimed by this poster when stating "Cause and effect break down at the quantum level" You made a claim that these do not.

I corrected your misunderstand of causality. Read what you type.

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.

You confuse an evaluation of your abilities with an ad hominem. An ad hominem is when one avoids the argument and attacks the person. However I makes points against your arguments before any comment about your abilities. The errors you make allowed me to create a conclusion regarding your abilities and education. Your comment further proves my point and reinforces my evaluation of your abilities.

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.

You failed to provide a reason for dismissing my points. You used the facade of a possibility of being mislead as a grounds of dismissal rather than forming any argument. Your point amounts to "Well you could be wrong but heck if I going to prove you wrong. I will just assert it instead and avoid make a counter-argument."

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.

Too bad you admitted in another thread that you have no formal education in either field. Now suddenly you do in a period of 4 months which is not enough for a formal education or for one to be complete.

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.

It was an evaluation of your abilities especially when you undermine your own points and that of Christianity by the mistakes you make.

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.

You actually did. First you made the erroneous claim of my use of red herrrings and ad hominems. These are fallacies. Again you are not reading what you have typed.

What I know about causality is irrelevant on this thread. It is not the subject of debate

Your education of points you bring up is very relevant. If you do not know what you are talking about your points have no merit. I am pointing out errors thereby showing your arguments have no merit.

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.

No, I first provided information which could have helped you but you didn't even bother to read anything by the philosophers I mentioned. Again due to your presupposition of me. The only hole is the one you have placed yourself in by being stubborn and biased.

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.

You should read Hawkins who has stated that God is not required. I doubt you read anything more than what confirms your bias and dismiss everything else. Read Hawkins No-Boundary Theory.


[quote[Unless God is timeless. As he is an eternal entity that would be the case. [/quote]

Which is incoherent. Change and actions are measured by time. Without time God is static and can not do anything. Pushing God into incoherent concepts in order to escape coherent concepts which render the concept of God moot does nothing in my view. It just shows that people are willing to embrace an sort of incoherent concept in order to immunize the concept from scrutiny.

Then start another debate and stop trying to hijack this one.

These points are part of your arguments in this thread. So no need to make a new thread. If you did not want to discussion these points you should of never respond nor made claims about causality.

No, it is not. It puts a beginning in eternity.

The prime mover argument part of Thomas Aquinas arguments for God. The prime mover is the unmoved entity. The entity which has no prior causes for its actions. This is a principle concept for 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.

No I was pointing out your errors. You said if no primer mover exists there is no first cause, there is no God. You made a mistake because you do not understand what you are talking about. Look up primer Read Thomas Aquinas's work as he uses and identifies this concept as God.

"The first and more manifest way is the argument from motion. It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion. Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another, for nothing can be in motion except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is in motion; whereas a thing moves inasmuch as it is in act. For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality. But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality. Thus that which is actually hot, as fire, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot, and thereby moves and changes it. Now it is not possible that the same thing should be at once in actuality and potentiality in the same respect, but only in different respects. For what is actually hot cannot simultaneously be potentially hot; but it is simultaneously potentially cold. It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved, i.e. that it should move itself. Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another. If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God"

Did you assume that to be my intentions?

Your attempted correction clear shows that intention.

Then you need to address the person who actually said it. Bunyip. You really haven't understood the post, have you?

I addressed both points and the mistakes made.

Unsubstantiated. No one knows if there is an unseen cause giving the impression of an uncaused cause.

This goes right into the problem of induction. Just because other objects/events have causes is not grounds to infer other objects/event which have no observable causes in fact have causes. It goes both ways. Since we have an example of causality failing as a methodology on a unknown renders further inference of another unknown moot. People can speculate all they want but by using induction one is not using deduction which is what verifies ideas.

And who does have a complete understanding of QM?

At least trained experts have provided information about QM which I mentioned.

As I have just written

Which renders you point as a problem of induction. This renders the idea of a 100% deterministic universe untenable thus one can not assume a cause until a cause has been observed.

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.

No you misunderstood my point. Predictions and deterministic views are build upon causality from previous observations. If there is no cause we can not make a prediction of events rendering deterministic views in error. If one applies deterministic causes of events outside a particular case this becomes a problem of induction. So even if 99/99'% of events have causes one can not assume that 100% of events have causes. One must identify a cause to conclude an event had a cause. You have probably have heard such an arguments leveled at the concept of God in the form of "What causes God" or "what designed the designer" It is the same problem either way. One can not infer

 

[Serenity7855]

http://www.ccjm.org/content/74/Suppl_1/S48.full.pdf

Here is the work by Dr. Andrew Amour which does not mentioned one case of transplants and memory transfer. McCraty is a nobody and a quack. His supposed membership to organization are those of a paid membership which you and I can purchase. The International Neurocardiology Network does not exist. Institute of Stress has no membership under his name. American Autonomic Society has a paid membership so rather than inviting qualified members one can just apply for a nice fee. The Pavlovian Society is another paid for membership organization. Association for Applied Psychophysiology and Biofeedback is another paid for membership group. There is only one reference to McCarty and it has nothing to do with your article. McCraty and Hearthmath really says nothing new, outside of any claims of memory transfer which are bogus. Now I admit I was not specific in my points regarding the article. What I considered to be pseudoscience was at the end of the article in which transplant patients had memory transfer or personality changes. This part was an addition made by the author of the article and not in the report by Dr. Andrew Amour. Hence the article quote-mined Amour in order to support it's psegudoscience. You did not fact check what you linked.

I had no need to check what I linked. I was not writing a scientific report. I was showing that the scriptures that claim that God writes on our hearts are now being confirmed by science. I selected two articles, at random, out of literally thousands, to verify that possibility. I stand by that claim. You are obviously not familiar with these recent discoveries, like the following article demonstrates, so all I am doing is educating you on developing scientific findings.

Many believe that conscious awareness originates in the brain alone. Recent scientific research suggests that consciousness actually emerges from the brain and body acting together. A growing body of evidence suggests that the heart plays a particularly significant role in this process.

Far more than a simple pump, as was once believed, the heart is now recognized by scientists as a highly complex system with its own functional “brain.”

The heart is one of the most important organs in the human body, because it is one of the main mediums for connecting us to each other and the Universe. Conventional science has taught us that the main role of the heart is to pump blood to all the systems of our body. This definition of the heart is not very accurate. Besides pumping blood, the heart also has an intelligence of its own.

According to neurocardiologists, 60 to 65 percent of heart cells are neuron cells, not muscle cells.2 This discovery has helped them develop experiments that have proved the heart works similar to the brain and in some ways is even superior to the brain. This may be the reason that the heart is the first organ to function after conception. Within about 20 days after conception, the heart starts to function, but the brain does not function until after roughly 90 days. This information tells us that the brain is secondary to the heart.

The heart gives us universal characteristic and the brain gives us individual characteristic. For this reason, the heart holds the key to bonding with others. Because the heart gives us universal characteristic and is the key to bonding, if we want to live in a world filled with peace and love, we need to listen and think more with our hearts instead of only our brains. Through the hidden power of the heart, we can achieve universal understanding; therefore, living in a world filled with peace and love is possible.

The Heart Has Its Own “Brain” and Consciousness : Conscious Life News

You are talking about logic when you attempt to prove faith is logical. Remove logical from your OP if you do not want to talk about logic.

"Faith in Christ is Completely Logical" is the heading for the debate. Look at the content of the OP to see what I am trying to achieve in the debate. I am laying down a challenge, i am not trying to prove anything.

So you admit by using pseudoscience, which is logically invalid and unsound, in order to validate the logic of faith in Christ. By the use of illogical views your argument for logic of belief becomes illogical. I discredit you not Christianity. Many Christians here have never made the simple mistakes you have.

You know that I am not admitting anything of the sort.

You put forward cause and effect. So I addressed this part not the misunderstanding of your later comments. You made positive claims in refuted to other positive claims. This is what I was addressing

No, cause and effect was contained within a quote from another poster. You misread it.

Causality is part of nature law, if misunderstood by many. I was correcting your views of causality as well as the misunderstand you first addressed. I first tried to correct you and actually provided information for a better argument. However your presupposition you hold of me, atheists and those that disagree with you have prevented you from even considering if information provided is useful or not. You dismissed it out of hand due to your bias.

By what authority do you feel you can correct my views and assume yourself to be right?

I "entertained" your post due to your failures in the use of logic. If your logic was sound I would have nothing to say but your logic is unsound so I have pointed it out.

By what authority do you feel you can correct my logic and assume yourself to be right?

Which you attempt to link with the first cause argument which is part of naturalistic laws. I understood your errors and corrected you.

By what authority do you feel you can correct my views and assume yourself to be right?

You mean your failure to understand causality which is part of naturalistic laws

I have not failed to understand causality.

I quote "Cause and effect = naturalistic laws. They do not break down at the quantum level, as claimed by this poster when stating "Cause and effect break down at the quantum level" You made a claim that these do not.

I corrected your misunderstand of causality. Read what you type.

These are words written by Bunyip.

You confuse an evaluation of your abilities with an ad hominem. An ad hominem is when one avoids the argument and attacks the person. However I makes points against your arguments before any comment about your abilities. The errors you make allowed me to create a conclusion regarding your abilities and education. Your comment further proves my point and reinforces my evaluation of your abilities.

An ad hominem means responding to arguments by attacking a person's character, rather than to the content of their arguments. You are apt at successfully doing just that.

You failed to provide a reason for dismissing my points. You used the facade of a possibility of being mislead as a grounds of dismissal rather than forming any argument. Your point amounts to "Well you could be wrong but heck if I going to prove you wrong. I will just assert it instead and avoid make a counter-argument."

Where do you feel I am trying to prove you wrong.

Too bad you admitted in another thread that you have no formal education in either field. Now suddenly you do in a period of 4 months which is not enough for a formal education or for one to be complete.

To bad? Hardly when it is the truth. I do not have any formal education in the subjects but that hardly means that I am ignorant of them. How condescending and what snobbery to think a pass certificate is the only way to gain knowledge.

It was an evaluation of your abilities especially when you undermine your own points and that of Christianity by the mistakes you make.

By what authority do you feel you can correct my views and assume yourself to be right?

You actually did. First you made the erroneous claim of my use of red herrrings and ad hominems. These are fallacies. Again you are not reading what you have typed.

I said " If there was a red herring then it was all yours." That is not a claim.

Your own words demonstrate that you are attacking my person rather then my argument, which was that naturalistic laws break down pre-big bang.

Your education of points you bring up is very relevant. If you do not know what you are talking about your points have no merit. I am pointing out errors thereby showing your arguments have no merit.

By what authority do you feel you can correct my views and assume yourself to be right?

No, I first provided information which could have helped you but you didn't even bother to read anything by the philosophers I mentioned. Again due to your presupposition of me. The only hole is the one you have placed yourself in by being stubborn and biased.

You do not know that. You are making baseless assertions regarding what I have or have not done. You are in error.

You should read Hawkins who has stated that God is not required. I doubt you read anything more than what confirms your bias and dismiss everything else. Read Hawkins No-Boundary Theory.

Stephen Hawkins religious beliefs are irrelevant to me. It is his knowledge on cosmology that interests me.

You do not know that I have not read No-Boundary Theory. You are making baseless assertions regarding what I have or have not read. You are in error.

[quote[Unless God is timeless. As he is an eternal entity that would be the case.

Which is incoherent. Change and actions are measured by time. Without time God is static and can not do anything. Pushing God into incoherent concepts in order to escape coherent concepts which render the concept of God moot does nothing in my view. It just shows that people are willing to embrace an sort of incoherent concept in order to immunize the concept from scrutiny.[/QUOTE]

You are using known science to determine the nature of God. It is your own bigotry that creates incoherent concepts because it limits your ability to think outside of the box. Time is only relevant to us and was created by a timeless God. But that is as speculative as your belief that God cannot function outside of time. Why would you want to scrutinise something that you do not believe exists. To want to understand the reasoning behind Christian belief is one thing but to scrutinise it is surely unnecessary to an unbeliever. It is simply none of your business and maybe a better use of your time is good advice.

These points are part of your arguments in this thread. So no need to make a new thread. If you did not want to discussion these points you should of never respond nor made claims about causality.

I did not make claims about causality, I was quoting someone who did.

The prime mover argument part of Thomas Aquinas arguments for God. The prime mover is the unmoved entity. The entity which has no prior causes for its actions. This is a principle concept for God.

Not in my belief system it isn't. It may create a intellectual testimony of the existence of God to the believer, however, for me it is unnecessary.

No I was pointing out your errors. You said if no primer mover exists there is no first cause, there is no God. You made a mistake because you do not understand what you are talking about. Look up primer Read Thomas Aquinas's work as he uses and identifies this concept as God.

By what authority do you feel you can correct my views and assume yourself to be right?

"The first and more manifest way is the argument from motion. It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion. Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another, for nothing can be in motion except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is in motion; whereas a thing moves inasmuch as it is in act. For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality. But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality. Thus that which is actually hot, as fire, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot, and thereby moves and changes it. Now it is not possible that the same thing should be at once in actuality and potentiality in the same respect, but only in different respects. For what is actually hot cannot simultaneously be potentially hot; but it is simultaneously potentially cold. It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved, i.e. that it should move itself. Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another. If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God"

Yes, I can confirm that you are correct in your assumption, however, all of this pertains to the physical world. Because of your own bigotry you fail to include the supernatural and it's laws. A first mover is only relevant to the material universe. We do not know what the state of existence might have been prior to the big bang, or you don't know, most Christians do know.

Which renders you point as a problem of induction. This renders the idea of a 100% deterministic universe untenable thus one can not assume a cause until a cause has been observed.

Then why do you say that there are uncaused causes in QM?

 

[Bunyip]

Serenity
Please stop referring to me. I made no such claim. Bearing false witness is not very Christian of you.

 

[Shad]

I had no need to check what I linked. I was not writing a scientific report. I was showing that the scriptures that claim that God writes on our hearts are now being confirmed by science. I selected two articles, at random, out of literally thousands, to verify that possibility. I stand by that claim. You are obviously not familiar with these recent discoveries, like the following article demonstrates, so all I am doing is educating you on developing scientific findings.

Post hoc rationalization back by pseudoscience. Not convincing at all nor logical

"Faith in Christ is Completely Logical" is the heading for the debate. Look at the content of the OP to see what I am trying to achieve in the debate. I am laying down a challenge, i am not trying to prove anything.

By putting forward the claim that faith is logical you are presenting an argument for the position. Reading comprehension is sorely lacking in your case. You presented the claim. It is not the jobs of others to prove you wrong but you job to substantiate the claim. A claim which you repeatedly fail to prove.

You know that I am not admitting anything of the sort.

You do not need to admit anything. However by using illogical pseudoscience you are admitting this unwittingly.

No, cause and effect was contained within a quote from another poster. You misread it.

I am not talking about th quote I am talking about your response to the quote. Read what you type. Read what I post.

By what authority do you feel you can correct my views and assume yourself to be right?

By the people I cited which you ignored even though all but one is a Christian. You dismissed your fellow Christians since your own bigotry towards me blinded you from every reading anything written by your fellow Christians.

By what authority do you feel you can correct my logic and assume yourself to be right?

This answer covers all your other non-arguments which you use to avoid addressing any points I have made.

Formal training, the education to identify what is a fallacy or not. The education to address actually arguments. All of which you display a lack of.

I have not failed to understand causality.

You failed to understand how it is applied, how there are different forms and applications. You displayed common laymen views, nothing more.

These are words written by Bunyip.

No part were your own words by claiming the opposite of Bunyip. He claims one position and you claimed another. I address your side first.

An ad hominem means responding to arguments by attacking a person's character, rather than to the content of their arguments. You are apt at successfully doing just that.

No I addressed many of your arguments. I am just restating a conclusion due to your own mistakes and flawed logic after addressing you arguments.

Where do you feel I am trying to prove you wrong.

You mentioned the possibility of being mislead which implies that I am wrong. Rather than proving I was wrong you used this an excuse to avoid an actually counter-argument.

To bad? Hardly when it is the truth. I do not have any formal education in the subjects but that hardly means that I am ignorant of them. How condescending and what snobbery to think a pass certificate is the only way to gain knowledge.

Did you forget what you said earlier today? "Education in logic and philosophy" So you have no formal education which means you were not taught by a qualified educator. Did you teach yourself? This would explain a lot of your mistakes. A certificate at least is an indication that you received a proper education rather than attempted to learn a complex field on your own, from a nut case or someone without a clue regarding logic and philosophy. Without a formal education you can not state if your education is in fact correct or not. I hope you didn't pay any money for your supposed education.

I said " If there was a red herring then it was all yours." That is not a claim.

So it is not a claim. You are just unable to identify if a point was fallacious or not. Instead you make an unsubstantiated statement.

Your own words demonstrate that you are attacking my person rather then my argument, which was that naturalistic laws break down pre-big bang.

No I pointed out your errors before I criticized your person.

You do not know that. You are making baseless assertions regarding what I have or have not done. You are in error.

Considering you actually attack the philosophical views which are used to support Christianity is all I need to conclude that you 1) Did not read anything by authors I mentioned 2) Do not understand arguments used by Christians for centuries.

Stephen Hawkins religious beliefs are irrelevant to me. It is his knowledge on cosmology that interests me.

Knowledge which discounts God completely. You are cherry picking his views and omitting his views which disagree with your presupposition. Hence why I mentioned reading his work on No-Boundary theory in which he says God is not required or even possible in his views.

You do not know that I have not read No-Boundary Theory. You are making baseless assertions regarding what I have or have not read. You are in error.

Obviously you did not as you would of realized the theory actually makes God is unnecessary which he states in his books about the theory. You cite him as a source but do not know God is rendered a fiction in his views and theory.

You are using known science to determine the nature of God. It is your own bigotry that creates incoherent concepts because it limits your ability to think outside of the box. Time is only relevant to us and was created by a timeless God. But that is as speculative as your belief that God cannot function outside of time. Why would you want to scrutinise something that you do not believe exists. To want to understand the reasoning behind Christian belief is one thing but to scrutinise it is surely unnecessary to an unbeliever. It is simply none of your business and maybe a better use of your time is good advice.

Nice double standard. You use science and physics in an attempt to prove God. However when I do the same to point out your incoherent concepts I am suddenly not allowed to do so. Thinking outside the box does not make an incoherent concept any less incoherent. I am scrutinizing your arguments for God. You placed God into this concept not I. You are putting forward ideas but suddenly no one is allowed to scrutinize your idea or that of your religion. If you want to avoid scrutiny put this thread in a DIR.

By pushing God outside of every conceivable concept which we identify as a fundamental part of existing you have made God non-existent. Invoking magic to hide God is no more convincing then claiming a magical dragon which no one can observe is in my closet.

I did not make claims about causality, I was quoting someone who did.

You made a counter claim which is what I addressed.

Not in my belief system it isn't. It may create a intellectual testimony of the existence of God to the believer, however, for me it is unnecessary.

You only display again that you do not understand your faith, arguments for it and in fact the arguments themselves. You make it up as you do along it seems.

Yes, I can confirm that you are correct in your assumption, however, all of this pertains to the physical world. Because of your own bigotry you fail to include the supernatural and it's laws. A first mover is only relevant to the material universe. We do not know what the state of existence might have been prior to the big bang, or you don't know, most Christians do know.

I am not obligated to entertain incoherent concepts such as the supernatural which is unproven. You can hide God in this concept all you want. A prime move is an argument for God, read what I posted and read what I told you do read. You are lagging behind Christian theology by almost 8 centuries.


So are you going to address a few of my arguments? Should I expect repeated questions of how I deem myself right and you as wrong? You are abusing your dodge so you can avoid a proper counter-argument.

 

[Serenity7855]

Post hoc rationalization back by pseudoscience. Not convincing at all nor logical

We are all entitled to our own opinions, as wrong as they may be.

By putting forward the claim that faith is logical you are presenting an argument for the position. Reading comprehension is sorely lacking in your case. You presented the claim. It is not the jobs of others to prove you wrong but you job to substantiate the claim. A claim which you repeatedly fail to prove.

Faith is logical, it is just not a part of my objectives here. If you want to start a knew thread entitled "is faith logical" I will be only to pleased to join in. We did go through a long period on here about faith where it was pretty much conclusive that as we all live our lives having faith in everything that we do, from catching a bus to sitting on a chair. Perhaps you can educate yourself by looking back over the thread. It has been done, and my colleagues here have adequately proven that faith is logical.

You do not need to admit anything. However by using illogical pseudoscience you are admitting this unwittingly.

I am not using illogical pseudo science. I am using the knowledge and wisdom of educated good men, no different from the men that you are a messenger for. That is where I get my authority from, so when you denegrate me, with accusations of ignorance, you only denegrate them. But I suspect that you take more pleasure from the denigration then you do from the debate, where you are constantly in error.

I am not talking about th quote I am talking about your response to the quote. Read what you type. Read what I post.

Really, if I were not reading what you type, and formulating what I write, we would not be communicating. Basics, dear boy, basics.

My response to the quote, that can be found and viewed here "Are there any accurate gaps for God? | ReligiousForums.com", was to provide the quote for appraisal by the reader. I did not directly respond to it and it was not directed at me. I gave it for those who were interested to read and evaluate it for themselves. It clearly showed that the writer had contradicted himself. No misrepresentation, as he might claim, because they were his actual words and I have not changed anything that he has said. If it is written on this forum then it is up for debate.

The Quote Reads

I think it is important to keep in mind that cause and effect are not universal. Cause and effect break down at the quantum level and of course only apply within time, pre-time there can be no cause and effect. The universe does not need to be caused.

You mention timelessness, and of course effect does not follow cause without time.

No misrepresentation there.

By the people I cited which you ignored even though all but one is a Christian. You dismissed your fellow Christians since your own bigotry towards me blinded you from every reading anything written by your fellow Christians.

So, by fallible, errant and opinionated men then, no different to the fallible, errant and opinionated men that I have quoted. Infallible men speculating on events that cannot even be completely proven to have taken place. You put your faith in fallible men, whereas, I have faith in God, who is omniscient and omnipotent. You call me thick.

This answer covers all your other non-arguments which you use to avoid addressing any points I have made.

Formal training, the education to identify what is a fallacy or not. The education to address actually arguments. All of which you display a lack of.

So, absolutely no authority whatsoever then. Well, that is brave of you to admit. We have all had formal training and education, on here, to some degree or another. I have a degree in "Environmental Engineering" but that does not make me an expert in cosmology. I have opinions and possess knowledge gleaned from others on the subject, though. No different to you, I presume. No, you have no authority, and therefore no right, to accuse me of lacking education and understanding when you are my equal, if that. I have been kindly informed by many posters that I possess a intellectual disposition, something I did not want to mention as it lacks humility.

You failed to understand how it is applied, how there are different forms and applications. You displayed common laymen views, nothing more.

I would be forgiven to think that this refers to you rather than to me. You have no authority to judge me thus.

No part were your own words by claiming the opposite of Bunyip. He claims one position and you claimed another. I address your side first.

That is funny as the reason it was initiated was because I said that I had learned the principle from him, his post on this forum, and he denied even saying it. I merely did a search and found an occassion where he did say it, however, I am actually in agreement with him, yet he persists in his accusations that I have misrepresented him.

No I addressed many of your arguments. I am just restating a conclusion due to your own mistakes and flawed logic after addressing you arguments.

I only put forward one argument and that was that natural laws break down pre-bigbang. What on earth are you putting yourself on a unstable pedestal about. You have not even addressed that argument. You have come up with a whole new, unrelated argument.

You mentioned the possibility of being mislead which implies that I am wrong. Rather than proving I was wrong you used this an excuse to avoid an actually counter-argument.

No it does not. I could be mislead by my own potentially incorrect beliefs. You are grasping at straws. There was no counter argument to avoid.

Did you forget what you said earlier today? "Education in logic and philosophy" So you have no formal education which means you were not taught by a qualified educator. Did you teach yourself? This would explain a lot of your mistakes. A certificate at least is an indication that you received a proper education rather than attempted to learn a complex field on your own, from a nut case or someone without a clue regarding logic and philosophy. Without a formal education you can not state if your education is in fact correct or not. I hope you didn't pay any money for your supposed education.

No, I have formal education, but as I said, not in these areas. I have Advanced level English and Sociology, a Higher National Diploma in Building Services, with Merits and Distinctions across the board, and I have a 2:1 honours degree in Environmental Engineering. I am educated, are you? I suggest that by your opinions and beliefs that it must surely be you who was educated by a nut case or someone without a clue regarding logic and philosophy. But for me to make such a suggestion renders me on the same level as you in ad hominem, or are you merely evaluating me rather then my beliefs and opinions.

So it is not a claim. You are just unable to identify if a point was fallacious or not. Instead you make an unsubstantiated statement.

On the contrary. I am suggesting that I had not seen any damaging fallacies, however, if there was one then it would be yours. You are being provocative and argumentative as a result of your inability to win a point here or even adequately make your own.

No I pointed out your errors before I criticized your person.

No you did not. You have not pointed out errors, you have expressed your own beliefs. Your own beliefs do not make everybody elses beliefs wrong. You could be equally as wrong, especially as your beliefs come from other individuals.

So, you admit to using argumentum ad hominem then. Thank you for your honesty.

Considering you actually attack the philosophical views which are used to support Christianity is all I need to conclude that you 1) Did not read anything by authors I mentioned 2) Do not understand arguments used by Christians for centuries.

I care little about philosophical views used to support Christian religions, which you would know if you had of invested a little time in reading the thread. Your conclusion is inaccurate as you do not have a clue what my beliefs are, demonstrated by your thoughts that I should comply with institutionalised religious establishments who, for centuries, have misinterpreted scriptures, I have no intentions of complying with man made religions. You tar me with the same brush used on the entire congregation. I need no interpreter of scripture all the time I have the Holy Ghost.

Knowledge which discounts God completely. You are cherry picking his views and omitting his views which disagree with your presupposition. Hence why I mentioned reading his work on No-Boundary theory in which he says God is not required or even possible in his views.

I said his knowledge on cosmology. I am not interested, or care, in his personal views on God. You are getting desperate again.

Obviously you did not as you would of realized the theory actually makes God is unnecessary which he states in his books about the theory. You cite him as a source but do not know God is rendered a fiction in his views and theory.

I said his knowledge on cosmology. I am not interested in his personal views on God. You are getting desperate again.

Nice double standard. You use science and physics in an attempt to prove God. However when I do the same to point out your incoherent concepts I am suddenly not allowed to do so. Thinking outside the box does not make an incoherent concept any less incoherent. I am scrutinizing your arguments for God. You placed God into this concept not I. You are putting forward ideas but suddenly no one is allowed to scrutinize your idea or that of your religion. If you want to avoid scrutiny put this thread in a DIR.

Your scrutiny is nothing more than a disguised attempt to discredit and falsify my God. I welcome honest debate from those who are interested in what I believe, as demonstrated in this very thread, I rebel against those who think they are superior in their beliefs to Christians so try and falsify their beliefs using word manipulations, like logical fallacies, and sheer dishonesty to achieve their agenda and then brag about their self proclaimed victories that the think they have gained. All the same time they are not worthy to know what we know or even enjoy the companionship of the Holy Ghost.

By pushing God outside of every conceivable concept which we identify as a fundamental part of existing you have made God non-existent. Invoking magic to hide God is no more convincing then claiming a magical dragon which no one can observe is in my closet.

I am a Christian. Do you comprehend what you accuse me of?

You made a counter claim which is what I addressed.

I have yet to see you successfully address anything here. I merely posted a post made by someone else and the commented on it.

You only display again that you do not understand your faith, arguments for it and in fact the arguments themselves. You make it up as you do along it seems.

I am a master scriptologist. I am an expert in the word of God and specialise in the Plan of Salvation. I am a world authority on it, whatever that means. Your remarks show your ineptitude to recognise someone who really does know what he is talking about. I have no particular faith. I am a Christian who follows the teaching of Jesus Christ. The cracks are beginning to show and I am becoming tired of you insults and slurs so my attention is beginning to wane.

I am not obligated to entertain incoherent concepts such as the supernatural which is unproven. You can hide God in this concept all you want. A prime move is an argument for God, read what I posted and read what I told you do read. You are lagging behind Christian theology by almost 8 centuries.

No, you are not obligated, but it is to your own disadvantage should you ignore it and remain in the forest looking for wood. The authority to act in the name of God left this earth when the last disciple died. It will return when Jesus returns. In the mean time, I will stick with his scriptures and continue tapping into the powers of heaven.

Christianity is a life style. You are refer to denominations within the christian faith, claiming to be created by god, having a form of godliness but denying the power there in. I do not wish to keep up with man made religions and false doctrines.

So are you going to address a few of my arguments? Should I expect repeated questions of how I deem myself right and you as wrong? You are abusing your dodge so you can avoid a proper counter-argument.

I cannot see any possibility of us debating here. You think I am thick so my desire and interest to spend time on well informed rebuttals is not good, as I know i will be wasting my time on deaf ears. What would be the point in divulging my opinions and beliefs to be accused of being uneducated, at the same time as you are laying traps to falsify my beliefs and win brownie points. Take a look at my debate with jonathan180iq, an atheist, and see why I spend much time in my response to him, as he does to mine. See how amicable and cordial he is, yet he pulls no punches in his post. Disagreement without being disagreeable. You would do well to read his post and take on his style of debating, if debating is what you enjoy. If it is confrontation and contention you enjoy, well, just stay as you are.

 

[Bunyip]

Serenity

I am asking again that you please stop referring to me and misrepresenting my comments. You are dishonestly misrepresenting me, and I have already asked you to desist.
I did not at any point tell you that natural law breaks down at the quantum level as you claimed.

Kindly stop making dishonest references to arguments that I have not made.

 

[Shad]

We are all entitled to our own opinions, as wrong as they may be.

You stand by fallacious reasoning thus prove your faith and you thinking illogical. Neither source is credible. The newpaper had to make false claims and your Heart site is new age quackery. You wouldn't know a credible sources if it bite you in the butt.

Faith is logical, it is just not a part of my objectives here. If you want to start a knew thread entitled "is faith logical" I will be only to pleased to join in. We did go through a long period on here about faith where it was pretty much conclusive that as we all live our lives having faith in everything that we do, from catching a bus to sitting on a chair. Perhaps you can educate yourself by looking back over the thread. It has been done, and my colleagues here have adequately proven that faith is logical.

You have yet to demonstrate this and it is your objective as it is in your OP title. If you want to back out of your erroneous statements you can. There is no need for me to make a new thread considering this has the same title. Ad populism arguments now. More fallacious reasons. Hilarious.


[/quote] I am not using illogical pseudo science. I am using the knowledge and wisdom of educated good men, no different from the men that you are a messenger for. That is where I get my authority from, so when you denegrate me, with accusations of ignirance, you only denegrate them. But I suspect that you take more pleasure from the denigration then you do from the debate where you are constantly in error. [/quote]

Good men that never made the claims made in your articles. Rather you mean you quoted nonsense and stand by illogical nonsense. I linked you the actually study which showed one articles is full of lies and the other guy is a quack. Congratulations you standing by New Age scams, hilarious. Not only do you display an inability to think logically you are gullible as well.

Really, if I were not reading what you type and formulating what I write we would not be communicatcommunicating. Basics, dear boy, basics.

Ah so you are unable to comprehended what you write? Since you keep mentioning a quote but I keep telling you I am not talking about the quote. I have had to tell you what 4 times now?

My response to the quote was to provide the quote for appraisal. I did not directly respond to it. I gave it for those who were interested to read and evaluate themselves.

You did make a response you claimed otherwise. You can BS all you want to convince yourself that but by making the opposite claims you hold that position.

So, by infallible men then, no different to the infallible men that I quoted. Infallible men speculating on events that cannot even be completely proven to have taken place. You put your faith in fall able men, whereas, I have faith in God who is omniscient and omnipotent. You call me thick.

Begging the question and putting faith into two incoherent concepts.

So, absolutely no authority whatsoever. Well, that is brave of you to admit. We have all had formal training and education to some degree. I have a degree in "Environmental Engineering" but that does not make me an expert in cosmology. I have opinions and knowledge gleaned from others on the subject though, no different to you, I presume. No, you have no authority to accuse me of lacking education and understanding when you are my equal, if that. I have been kindly informed by many posters that I possess a intellectual disposition, something I did not want to mention as it lacks humility.

Hilarious. So a B/A in philosophy is no authority when you have no degrees in it at all. See when I mean formal training I actually mean trained by accredited educators in an accredit school with an accredit courses. Not training in a fields like engineering which is not philosophy. Your self-taught yourself which is why it is easy to point out your mistakes. Other's opinions of you mean nothing to me, certainly no anonymous claims made by you. Also you again need fallacious reasoning which only convinces yourself.

I would be forgiven to think that this refers to you rather than to me.

Considering you do not understand basic principles of causality in relation to God, agent causality, I find my point has merit.

That is funny as the reason it was initiated was because I said that I had learned the principle from him and he denied it. I am in agreement with him, duh.

Yet he clearly has repeated to you that you have lied about what he has said. That does not sound like an agreement. He has nto put forward a shared view, just that he did not say what you claim he said.

I only put forward one argument and that was that natural laws break down pre-bigbang. What on earth are you putting yourself on a pedestal about.

Which renders causality moot. You just undermined one of the previous points when you cited Kalam months ago. Losing track of your sophistry I see.

No it does not. I could be mislead by my own incorrect beliefs. You are grasping at straws. There was no counter argument.

You are being misled to your incorrect views. No counter-arguments means my point stands uncontested.

No, I have formal education, but as I said, not in these areas. I have Advanced level English and Sociology, a Higher National Diploma in Building Services with Merits and Distinctions across the board, and I have a 2:1 honours degree in Environmental Engineering. I am educated, are you? I suggest that by your opinions and beliefs that it must surely be you who was educated by a nut case or someone without a clue regarding logic and philosophy. But for me to make such a suggestion renders me at the same level as you in ad hominem, or are you merely evaluating me rather then my beliefs and opinions.

Hilarious, let me go ask my mechanic about some of the least philosophical debates. I am sure his education in a field that is not philosophy helps a lot. I have two B/A, philosophy and history as well as working on my doctorate in archeology. All from one of the top universities on the planet.

Hilarious again. You makes statements than attempt to retract statements after making them. My evaluation of you is due to your inability to substantiate your beliefs without resorting to fallacies reasoning

On the contrary. I am suggesting that I had not seen any damaging fallacies, however, if there was one then it would be yours. You are being provocative and argumentative as a result of your inability to win a point here.

Fallacious reasoning is damaging by definition. Followed by another empty claim of yours. I am argumentative by my nature in relation to view which I do not hold. Hence commenting in a debate thread... I only seem provocative since I point out your mistakes which you take very personally since you can not separate your religious views from critical evaluation of your own arguments.

So, you admit to using argumentum ad hominem then. Thank you for your honesty.

No since I already addressed your fallacious arguments I am merely restating my conclusion of your abilities. Learn the difference between an ad hominem and an evaluation of your character.

I care little about philosophical views used to support Christian religions, which you would know if you had of invested a little time in reading the thread. Your conclusion is inaccurate as you do not have a clue what my beliefs are, demonstrated by your thoughts that I should comply with institutionalised religious establishments, when I have no intentions of complying with man made religions. You tar me with the same brush used on the entire congregation.

So you do not care about arguments for Christianity but use arguments for Christianity when it is suitable. Hilarious contradiction you have here. You have used the Kalam argument before which is a centuries old argument for God.

I said his knowledge on cosmology. I am not interested in his personal views on God. You are getting desperate again.

Clearly you have never read his cosmological views which require no God which is repeated stated in his work, press releases, interviews, papers and articles.

Your scrutiny is nothing more than a disguised attempt to discredit and falsify my God. I welcome honest debate from those who are interested in what I believe, as demonstrated in this very thread, I rebel against those who think they are superior in their beliefs to Christians so try and falsify their beliefs using word manipulations, like logical fallacies, and sheer dishonesty to achieve their agenda a brag about their victories that the think they have gained. All the same time the are not worthy to know what we know.

No. I am attacking your arguments. Not once have I made a claim there is no God. Nor have a drawn a conclusion that your fallacious arguments prove there is no God. A debate is about opposing views not preaching to the choir. Perhaps you should post in DIR if you want a non-debate with the choir. I do not brag, I mock your lack of abilities to form an argument which is no fallacious. Learn the difference

I am a Christian. Do you comprehend what you accuse me of?

I accuse you of nothing more than every other theist which attempts to hide God behind incoherent concepts. Being a Christian does not automatically make you credible, honesty nor coherent. This type of facade only convinces yourself.

I have yet to see you successfully address anything here

Perhaps you show read more carefully. Maybe slower.

I am a master scriptologist. I am an expert in the word of God and specialise in the Plan of Salvation. I am a world authority on it. You remarks show your ineptitude to recognise someone who really does know what he is talking about. I have no particular faith. I am a Christian who follows the teaching of Jesus Christ. The cracks are beginning to show and I am becoming tired of you insults.

A master in nonsense then? A world authority? Nice ego you have there. Link me something published by you in a credible source.

No, you are not obligated but it is to your own disadvantage should you ignore it and remain in the forest looking for wood. The authority to act in the name of God left this earth when the last disciple died. It will return when Jesus returns. In the mean time I will stick with his scriptures and continue tapping into the powers of heaven. Christianity is a life style. You refer to denominations created by god having a form of godliness but denying the power there in. I do not wish to keep up with man made religions and false doctrines.

Begging the question. Invoking something I do not believe in is in no way convincing.

I cannot see any possibility of us debating here. You think I am thick so my desire to spend time on rebuttal is not good as I will be wasting my time on deaf ears. What would be the point in divulging my opinions and beliefs to be accused of being uneducated at the same time as you are laying traps to falsify my beliefs and win brownie points. Take a look at my debate with jonathan180iq, an atheist, and see why I spend much time in my response, as he does to mine. See how amicable, cordial, yet pulls no punches in his post. Disagreement without being disagreeable. You would do well to read his post and take on his style of debating, if debating is what you enjoy. If it is confrontation and contention you enjoy, well, just stay as you are.

It does show either an unwillingness or inability to substantiate you arguments. I attempted with my first post be as neutral as possible however your bigotry clouded your ability to read anything I provided. Even when I was citing philosophers who argue for God and are Christian you couldn't put aside your own bias to consider their views which I was putting forward. You become disagreeable in your first fallacious response but still can not figure out what is a fallacy. Hence I criticized your knowledge of fields you attempt to invoke in support of your faith. This is life, put your big boy pants on and deal with it or restrain yourself from making statements in public.

Welcome to the real world in which not everyone has the patiences for illogical reasoning and fallacious arguments. You could show a little will power and restrain yourself from responding to those that upset you. Instead you just whine and complain. Yet you are also guilt of that which you accuse me off. Pot meet kettle. The fact of the matter is you take criticism of your views and arguments far too personal. Your emotion and personal outrage override your ability to stay on topic and defend your arguments. You become sidetracked easily then blame others for a fault all your own.

So are you going to make an actual point in regards to the OP or are you going to continue to avoid your burden of proof with useless banter?

 

[McBell]

I had no need to check what I linked. I was not writing a scientific report. I was showing that the scriptures that claim that God writes on our hearts are now being confirmed by science. I selected two articles, at random, out of literally thousands, to verify that possibility. I stand by that claim. You are obviously not familiar with these recent discoveries, like the following article demonstrates, so all I am doing is educating you on developing scientific findings.

Ouch.
Like he said, you should have verified that what you linked to was science.

 

[Serenity7855]

You stand by fallacious reasoning thus prove your faith and you thinking illogical.

No, you are accusing me of standing by fallacious reasoning, it does not necessarily follow that because you have said it that it must be true. Philosophy is not really an exact science, is it. More like a general science.

Neither source is credible. The newpaper had to make false claims and your Heart site is new age quackery.

Both sources are as credible as your own. That you think differently is just a narcissistic trait of yours.

You wouldn't know a credible sources if it bite you in the butt.

Sorry, is this an ad hominem or an evaluation of my persona. I can never be certain with you.

You have yet to demonstrate this and it is your objective as it is in your OP title.

No, it has been adequately demonstrated in this thread, as I have already told you. Read the thread.

If you want to back out of your erroneous statements you can.

I have no intentions of backing out of my statement, which is most certainly not erroneous.

There is no need for me to make a new thread considering this has the same title. Ad populism arguments now. More fallacious reasons. Hilarious.

This is a philosophical term and relates to politics rather then an individual on a religious forum. As it is philosophical it must be treated as such, that is, incapable of accurate quantitative expression or precise predictions and rigorous methods of testing the hypotheses. Philosophy is merely a reflection on thoughts and concepts and should never be taken as seriously as exact sciences.

I am not using illogical pseudo science. I am using the knowledge and wisdom of educated good men, no different from the men that you are a messenger for. That is where I get my authority from, so when you denegrate me, with accusations of ignirance, you only denegrate them. But I suspect that you take more pleasure from the denigration then you do from the debate where you are constantly in error. [/quote]

Good men that never made the claims made in your articles. Rather you mean you quoted nonsense and stand by illogical nonsense. [/QUOTE]

No, I quoted two articles by Doctor Maurice Renard, Dr. Rollin McCraty, and Neurologist, Dr. Andrew Amour, corroborated by Harvard Medical School. It is all to clear that these individuals education surpasses your own and that it would not matter who they are you would object to their findings on the grounds that it contradicts your own. But these are two articles out of thousands, as I have repeatedly informed you and you have ignored.

I linked you the actually study which showed one articles is full of lies and the other guy is a quack. Congratulations you standing by New Age scams, hilarious.

People generally do not lie, they believe that what they say is true, as these individuals do. Luckily they are not on their own. There have been papers written and articles published by hundreds of like minded, educated real scientists. It is becoming widely accepted as a fact. I bet you think that HIV causes AIDS just because a handful of unscrupulous microbiologists say so. Strength in numbers, and all that physiological stuff.

Not only do you display an inability to think logically you are gullible as well.

Sorry, I have to ask again. Is this yet another of your many nasty ad hominem or are you evaluating me again.

Ah so you are unable to comprehended what you write? Since you keep mentioning a quote but I keep telling you I am not talking about the quote. I have had to tell you what 4 times now?

Ah, you do not like repeating yourself as much as I. Maybe you should read it a couple of times before you respond.

You did make a response you claimed otherwise. You can BS all you want to convince yourself that but by making the opposite claims you hold that position.

No I did not make the opposite claim at any point. I used to think that cause and effect continued beyond the big bang, until reading the logic in this post. I know believe that it breaks down pre-big bang as a result of this post.

I am a Christian, I do not use BS as it is dishonest, mainly being the ownership of the heathens.

Hilarious. So a B/A in philosophy is no authority when you have no degrees in it at all. See when I mean formal training I actually mean trained by accredited educators in an accredit school with an accredit courses. Not training in a fields like engineering which is not philosophy. Your self-taught yourself which is why it is easy to point out your mistakes. Other's opinions of you mean nothing to me, certainly no anonymous claims made by you. Also you again need fallacious reasoning which only convinces yourself.

You do know that a B/A is a arts degree, don't you?. You do realise that History and philosophy are not exact sciences, don't you?. When I was in university those taking philosophy and history were considered to be less knowledgeable then everyone else because they opted for an easy degree. Now engineering is based on exact science and not thoughts and ideas that cannot be quantified and tested. But hey, I did not ask you to try and out smart me on our levels of education. I was responding to your claim that I am uneducated by telling you what my qualifications are. That you come back with details of your own qualification shows that you have a need to be top dog. Better then all the rest. Wow, was that philosophical? Interesting response that I must remember.

Considering you do not understand basic principles of causality in relation to God, agent causality, I find my point has merit.

Oh, I understand it, however, it is not up for debate here so I am refraining from responding to it.

Yet he clearly has repeated to you that you have lied about what he has said. That does not sound like an agreement. He has nto put forward a shared view, just that he did not say what you claim he said.

The good thing about this new software is that when you put undesirables on ignore you never get to see a single word that they say. Even if you respond quoting their words they do not show them. I do not have a clue what Bunyip writes about me, however, how can I be lying when I have published his post making the claims that he denies saying. That is not rrocket science and even someone with a philosophy B/A should have little problems comprehending that one.

Which renders causality moot. You just undermined one of the previous points when you cited Kalam months ago. Losing track of your sophistry I see.

No, but causality was never being debated until you took us off course with it.

If you want to comment on the thread that debates Kalam then may I suggest you do it there instead of on a completely different thread.

You are being misled to your incorrect views. No counter-arguments means my point stands uncontested.

Yes, I am sure that philosophically it is, however, philosophy is not an exact science so you could be equally wrong in your assertion.

Hilarious, let me go ask my mechanic about some of the least philosophical debates. I am sure his education in a field that is not philosophy helps a lot. I have two B/A, philosophy and history as well as working on my doctorate in archeology. All from one of the top universities on the planet.

Oh my, stands back in amazement. Oh come on, they are pseudo sciences. Nothing to brag about, that is for sure. What is the doctorate for, Home Economics. You never have anything until you are published and certified. I am also studying for a Doctorate in physics but that does not make me a doctor. Your snobbery in bragging top everything is a philosophical exposure.

Hilarious again. You makes statements than attempt to retract statements after making them. My evaluation of you is due to your inability to substantiate your beliefs without resorting to fallacies reasoning

Those are your opinions, which are, quite frankly, useless here

Clearly you have never read his cosmological views which require no God which is repeated stated in his work, press releases, interviews, papers and articles.

It may well be clear to you, but no surprises there.

I accuse you of nothing more than every other theist which attempts to hide God behind incoherent concepts. Being a Christian does not automatically make you credible, honesty nor coherent. This type of facade only convinces yourself.

It does show either an unwillingness or inability to substantiate you arguments.

No, I am very capable of defending my opinions and beliefs I just do not cast my pearl before swine.

I attempted with my first post be as neutral as possible however your bigotry clouded your ability to read anything I provided.

My previous incursion with you have made me sceptical over your intentions. Your character traits leave little to be desired. You sow bad seeds and you reap bitter fruits.

Even when I was citing philosophers who argue for God and are Christian you couldn't put aside your own bias to consider their views which I was putting forward.

As I have said, I am no respecter of men I am a respecter of God, but having said that my beliefs are shared by many other christians on this forum and they have my loyalty and respect. I do not need to be told what I already know.

You become disagreeable in your first fallacious response but still can not figure out what is a fallacy. Hence I criticized your knowledge of fields you attempt to invoke in support of your faith.

You think I am disagreeable because I do not agree with your philosophy. It is a debating forum.

This is life, put your big boy pants on and deal with it or restrain yourself from making statements in public.

ad hominem or evaluation.

Welcome to the real world in which not everyone has the patiences for illogical reasoning and fallacious arguments. You could show a little will power and restrain yourself from responding to those that upset you. Instead you just whine and complain.

The logic that you so flagrantly dish out to me is better suited to you.

Yet you are also guilt of that which you accuse me off. Pot meet kettle. The fact of the matter is you take criticism of your views and arguments far too personal. Your emotion and personal outrage override your ability to stay on topic and defend your arguments. You become sidetracked easily then blame others for a fault all your own.

My sole purpose for being here is to have my faith challenged. It is like the training before the fight for me. I revel in it and welcome any genuine criticism of my belief, as long as those criticizing are capable of understanding why I am what I am. Insult me or offend me and my guard goes up and no amount of punching will penetrative it. My willingness to debate declines and my desire to respond with my pearls of wisdom wanes rapidly. I eventually stop responding in the hope that a constructive debater will emerge again, as with jonathan180iq. I see absolutely no reason why I should take the personal attacks that people like yourself dish out. I put poster like Khan, Ingledsva, Sapiens and Bunyip on my ignore list and i forget they are there. Only when a colleague messages me do I know if something serious has been said. By doing this I can enjoy the forum as it is supposed to be enjoyed with no sight of negative and provocative rhetoric intended to distress, irk and perturb the recipient for no other reason then to score points. When you act amicable and with cordial decorum I will take my pearls out and we can debate our differences. Until then I will remain guarded and my pearls will stay in my pocket.

So are you going to make an actual point in regards to the OP or are you going to continue to avoid your burden of proof with useless banter?

I have made a multiplicity of points and have enjoyed some rewarding debates on this thread. You have just not taken the time to read them.

 

[Serenity7855]

Ouch.
Like he said, you should have verified that what you linked to was science.

I should put you on ignore, and have considered it many time, but you are incredibly entertaining and amusing so I sort of enjoy your sharp undercuts when there is a chance of losing the fight.

 

[McBell]

I should put you on ignore, and have considered it many time, but you are incredibly entertaining and amusing so I sort of enjoy your sharp undercuts when there is a chance of losing the fight.

I notice that par normal you ignore the meat of the post whilst whining about the lack of meat in the post.

One wonders what it is you fear.

 

[Serenity7855]

I notice that par normal you ignore the meat of the post whilst whining about the lack of meat in the post.

One wonders what it is you fear.

The death of one of my children or my wife. Cancer. My trousers falling down in the middle of the town. The usual stuff, but nothing on hear frightens me in the slightest. Not even your ridiculous avatar.

 

[McBell]

The death of one of my children or my wife. Cancer. My trousers falling down in the middle of the town. The usual stuff, but nothing on hear frightens me in the slightest. Not even your ridiculous avatar.

more avoidance.

No worries mate.
I never thought for a moment you would address the point.

 

[Serenity7855]

more avoidance.

No worries mate.
I never thought for a moment you would address the point.

You must be a seer, an Oracle, a sooth sayer or even a prophet. Praise the Lord.

 

[McBell]

You must be a seer, an Oracle, a sooth sayer or even a prophet. Praise the Lord.

*yawn*

interesting how you are just as guilty of that which you whine about.

 

[Theodore A. Jones]

I spent many, many years trying to disprove religion and faith. Frankly, most religions are build upon the interpretations and logic of men, who do, by nature, fall short of the glory of God, thus their doctrines are susceptible to being flawed as well. So religions are easy to disprove, and that is not just a handful, that is all of them. So when we see our coequals, on the other side of the fence, rubbing their hands together in glee, taunting us with the words that religions are slowly fading from our world, we can take solice in the fact that we are best rid of them anyway, none of have authority to act in the name of God. To disprove them is a little like using the scientific method. You have to simply be familiar with the scriptures, which give us and insight to the character and will of God, and have god knowledge of the Plan of Redemption. Like science there are set constants and laws that cannot be change. By those laws we can know what is true and what is false. If the contravene a principle or commandment then they are false.

For example, I listen to a testimony of a man who died and was revived. He gave a detailed account of what happened to him whilst he was dead. A very convincing account as well, but for one detail that exposed it as a fraud, or the source was dubious. He said that he found himself in the presence of God. Now, anyone who knows scriptures would know that it is impossible for a Spirit to be in the presence of God, pre-judgement. Anyone who is familiar with the Plan of Salvation would also know that his claim was fallacious. The Plan of Salvation is like a jig saw puzzle with every piece being unique. Many of our religions have some of the pieces, however, none of them have all the pieces. To disprove them is just a matter of looking at the pieces to see if they are all there. I have yet to find a religion that has all the pieces.

To clarify when I say religion I am referring to denominations in the Christian faith.

Now faith and our personal relationship with God is another story. It cannot be faulted in anyway or form. To be converted by the Holy Ghost, who opens the gates to the pure knowledge of the Plan of Redemption, and to receive that knowledge in all humility and faith in Christ, is to make yourself impervious to the fiery darts of Satan. So, in essence, I am throwing down the gauntlet to anyone who thinks they can disprove the logic of the Plan that was devised by God and accepted by Christ. I am looking for miss-shaped jig saw puzzle pieces that do to fit making the finished picture ugly instead of magnificent to behold. I am looking for someone to stump me on any aspect of Gods marvelous work and wonder to bring to pass the salvation and eternal life of mankind. If it cannot be done then even the disbelieved must concede that it is a rational and logical plan.

"Plan of Redemption" to your mind is referencing ....................................................? Fill in the blanks.

 

[Theodore A. Jones]

Not necessarily. I don't find conventional Christianity to be very logical.

What you assume to be conventional Christianity isn't. The bible does not support any religious perspective taught at this time asserted to be authentic Christianity. What you actually need to do to defeat your opponents is use their own book, the bible, to defeat their assumption. Conventional Christianity's foundation is the false assumption that a man's murder is also a direct benefit. Authentic Christianity teaches the opposite. That man's murder is actually a universally accountable sin by law according to the bible. Simple if you know what to do.

 

[Shad]

No, you are accusing me of standing by fallacious reasoning, it does not necessarily follow that because you have said it that it must be true. Philosophy is not really an exact science, is it. More like a general science.

Philosophy has many branches and is one of the key methods of forming coherent and well thought arguments. It is a "filtering process" for critical thinking. Philosophy is the "why", science is the how.

Both sources are as credible as your own. That you think differently is just a narcissistic trait of yours.

Nope. I proved that the newspaper article quote-mined a study in order to support the BS of memory and character changes of some quack. Your heartmath sites has a doctor which lies about his merits, has no peer-reviews sources and selling fancy but useless devices to the gullible. Learn the difference between a proper study which I link and quack websites

Sorry, is this an ad hominem or an evaluation of my persona. I can never be certain with you.

Considering you can't research more than a basic Google it was an evaluation of your abilities.

No, it has been adequately demonstrated in this thread, as I have already told you. Read the thread.

I have read the thread. You only convinced those already in the choir. Try convincing someone not part of your faith group, then you would have demonstrated something.

I have no intentions of backing out of my statement, which is most certainly not erroneous.

Ah so you are going to stick to your statement all while demonstrating you complete lack of ability to understand let alone use logic.

This is a philosophical term and relates to politics rather then an individual on a religious forum. As it is philosophical it must be treated as such, that is, incapable of accurate quantitative expression or precise predictions and rigorous methods of testing the hypotheses. Philosophy is merely a reflection on thoughts and concepts and should never be taken as seriously as exact sciences.

Again you display you do not understand logic. When you mention how many people agree or their opinions of you this is an ad populum argument. When X amount of people support a view that it must be true. It has nothing to do with politics. Saying X people think A or Y people like B is an ad populum, look it up some time.

Yes it is a reflection between good and bad ideas, good and bad arguments. However you failed the filter test with your using of fallacious reasoning.

I am not using illogical pseudo science. I am using the knowledge and wisdom of educated good men, no different from the men that you are a messenger for. That is where I get my authority from, so when you denegrate me, with accusations of ignirance, you only denegrate them. But I suspect that you take more pleasure from the denigration then you do from the debate where you are constantly in error.

You are as per the link of the actually study showing that parts of the articles were never made by the doctor in question. One man makes no such statements and the other is a quack.

No, I quoted two articles by Doctor Maurice Renard, Dr. Rollin McCraty, and Neurologist, Dr. Andrew Amourand and corroborated by Harvard Medical School. It is all to clear that these individuals education surpasses your own and that it would not matter who they are you would object to their findings on the grounds that it contradicts your own. But these are two articles out of thousands, as I have repeatedly informed you and you have ignored.

Did you missed the work "metaphorical"? Do you know what this work means. The brain and body communication is basic observation. Poke your skin and observe. If you looked at the study I linked one Dr makes no claims of memory or characteristic transfer at all. So one man does not say what you claim. Agin the other guy is a quack selling what amounts to Scientology devices for the gullible with no one peer-reviewed study. That is the different between credible and being a quack. The different between proper research and your confirmation bias.

People do not lie, the believe that what they say is true, as these individuals do. Luckily they are not on their own. There have been papers written and articles published by hundreds of like minded, educated real scientists.

No you lied. You made a claim that these two made support everything you post including memory/charactistic transfer. One did no such thing and the other has no published studies at all. When I linked you the actual study proving parts are additions by other people. The study I posted showed a relation between emotions, stress etc but does not say memories are in the heart. Read the study I posted. You won't though as it proves you are wrong and a liar.

Ah, you do not like repeating yourself as much as I. Maybe you should read it a couple of times before you respond. If I were not reading what you type and formulating what I write we would not be communicatcommunicating. Basics, dear boy, basics.

Learn to read more carefully and understand what the words posted. As per above you clearly have cognitive issues.

No I did not make the opposite claim at any point. I used to think that cause and effect continued past the big bang, until reading this post. I know believe that it breaks down pre-big bang as a result of this post. I am a Christian, I do not use BS as it is dishonest mainly being the ownership of the heathens.

If it breaks down causality becomes moot so it no longer works. No time, no causality, no space, no causality

You do know that a B/A is a arts degree, don't you. You do realise that History and philosophy are not exact sciences, don't you. When I was in university those taking philosophy and history were considered to be less knowledgeable then everyone else because the opted for an easy degree. No engineering is based on exact science and not thoughts and ideas that cannot be quantified and tested. But hey, I did not ask you to try and out do me on our levels of education. I was responding to your claim that I am uneducated by telling you what my qualifications are. That you come back with details of your own qualification shows that you have a need to be top dog. Wow, was that philosophical? Interesting response that I must remember.

Yes I do as philosophy is under the arts department at SFU. It is required for the MA and PhD programs. You would know this if you had taken philosophy yourself. At least have a B/A is a far cry above a person with no formal education in the field at all. You or others personal opinions on what courses I have under my belts is an ad hominem. You neither criticized my arguments but instead try to disparate my choice of career path. Being an enginner does not make you an expect on anything but engineer. Nice ego you have there. My point still stands. I never claimed in general you were uneducated but that you are uneducated in logic and philosophy. Have a degree(s) in other fields in no way changes that point

You asked me remember. Also considering you repeated a quote when I repeated told you I was not talking about the quote shows either you have memory or reading comprehension issues.

No, I have formal education, but as I said, not in these areas. I have Advanced level English and Sociology, a Higher National Diploma in Building Services with Merits and Distinctions across the board, and I have a 2:1 honours degree in Environmental Engineering. I am educated, are you?

The good thing about this new software is that when you put undesirables on ignore you never get to see a single word that they say. Even if you respond quoting their words they do not show them. I do not have a clue what Bunyip writes about me, however, how can I be lying when I have published his post making the claims that he denies saying. That is not rrocket science and even someone with a philosophy B/A should have little problems comprehending that one.

General and special relativity break down at the quantum level as does causality hence quantum indeterminacy. At the pre-BB singularity level there is no time nor space which is required for causality. Classical physics does properly work at the quantum level, this has been known for decades. So one can not make a statement casuality is universal without invoking the problem of induction. One can not claim everything has a cause when everything in fact does not have a detectable cause. It is fallacious thinking. If you understood the mechanic of causality you wouldn't misunderstand his point.

No, but causality was never being debated until you took us off course with it.

You quote him from a separate thread, you brought causality into the thread. You also brought up cosmology pages ago. Do not bring up a topic if you do not want to discuss it.

If you want to comment on the thread that debates Kalam then may I suggest you do it there instead of on a completely different thread.

You brought up cosmology pages ago. I am just pointing out your use of Kalam then you rejection of the basic principles of the prime mover. I am showing how inconsistent you are. You accept argument A then claim you do not follow argument A.

Yes, I am sure that philosophically it is, however, philosophy is not an exact science so you could be equally wrong in your assertion.

Hiding in the God of the gaps I see. This not a counter-argument but a fallacious point. Try again.

Oh my, stands back in amazement. Oh come on, they are pseudo sciences. Nothing to brag about, that is for sure. What is the doctorate for, Home Economics. You never have anything until you are published and certified. I am also studying for a Doctorate in physics but that does not make me a doctor. Your snobbery in bragging top everything is a philosophical exposure.

A certificate at the least shows one has a formal education and is accredited compared to someone without any sort of certificate in this field. I am not bragging as you asked me about my education remember? Do you see it as bragging since I am certified in a certain topic while you are not? Besides you brought up your education first then proved that you have none in philosophy.

Those are your opinions, which are, quite frankly, useless here

Well justified opinion which makes it valid. As per the mistakes you have made in the course of this thread.

It may well be clear to you, but no surprises there.

It is clear for anyone that read his work in the last two decades.

No, I am very capable of defending my opinions and beliefs I just do not cast my pearl before swine.

Apparently not since you have yet to address anything in my first post. Rather you go off-topic once someone post an argument you are unable to form a rebuttal to.

My previous incursion with you have made me sceptical over your intentions. Your character traits leave little to be desired. You sow bad seeds and you reap bitter fruits.

As I you. However my first post was very neutral. You rejected this metaphorical olive branch, went straight into fallacious arguments, refused to address anything in my first post and continue to go off into useless banter.

As I have said, I am no respecter of men I am a respecter of God, but having said that my beliefs are shared by many other christians on this forum and they have my loyalty and respect. I do not need to be told what I already know.

Other Christian's beliefs are irrelevant and a fallacious points, ad populum. Run to the choir if you want, it only shows that you need your social and emotion safety net when confront with arguments you are unable to address.

I am disagreeable because I do not agree with your philosophy. It is a debating forum.

No MY philosophy but philosophy and logic in general. Fallacious reasoning is not part of MY philosophy, it is part of the whole field. You go ahead and disagree with that which you do not understand nor can utilize properly.

The logic that you so flagrantly dish out to me is better suited to you.

It is better suited to philosophers and those that understand in general .

My sole purpose for being here is to have my faith challenged. It is like the training before the fight for me. I revel in it and welcome any genuine criticism of my belief as long as those criticizing are capable of understanding why I am what I am. Insult me or offend me and my guard goes up and no amount of punching will penetrative it. My willingness to debate recedes and my desire to respond wanes. I eventually stop responding in the hope that a constructive debater will emerge again, as with jonathan180iq.

So you make a post claiming you faith is logical then expect others to prove it wrong. This is not how the burden of proof works. First you must demonstrate is logical. No rational person makes an unsubstantiated claim then demands other to prove them wrong.

There is a pink dragon in my closet, prove me wrong! Irrational people are hilarious.

I have made a multiplicity of points and have enjoyed some rewarding debates on this thread. You have just not taken the time to read them.

No I read them, I found your past points as well as your current points to be fallacious thus illogical.

 

[Serenity7855]

Philosophy has many branches and is one of the key methods of forming coherent and well thought arguments. It is a "filtering process" for critical thinking. Philosophy is the "why", science is the how.

Why should a human being be interested in philosophy? Isn't philosophy fit for fools only, or isn't it a merely academic trifling and hairsplitting in search of unobtainable knowledge?

Or isn't philosophy mostly a set of false illusions from the past - sophistries designed to comfort one's desires by wishful thinking and presumption - that these days have been replaced by science and mathematics?

Philosophy causes confusion and creates stumbling blocks to general understanding by any educated individual. It is pseudo science intended to complicate and create unnecessary smoke screens znd is reliant on personal opinions and thoughts. That means that a philosophical view can easily change from one person to another. It is not an exact science though you use it here as though it is law that must be obeyed. Of course, it is not. It has no place on the general religious section of this forum, especially as you would appear to be the only qualified philosopher here, although we all philosophy to some degree as we all think and reason. And that is fine as long as you know that to abide by the quasi rules of philosophy is not an absolute requirement in debate. We can voice our opinions without having to abide by man made rules of how to present those opinions. Philosophy is for philosophers not for everyone. If philosophy is your thing then may I suggest you frequent the philosophy section of the forum. Most people here are not philosophers so you have an unfair advantage on them. You will know this as prior to your appearance on this thread philosophical fallacies were not mentioned and the debate was running smoothly. You appear with your fallacies and upset the apple cart with your logic and philosophy that nobody really wants. You are a unwelcome minority that is wrecking what was a good debate by your necessity to show off your wares that nobody in interested in accept for you.

Nope. I proved that the newspaper article quote-mined a study in order to support the BS of memory and character changes of some quack. Your heartmath sites has a doctor which lies about his merits, has no peer-reviews sources and selling fancy but useless devices to the gullible. Learn the difference between a proper study which I link and quack websites

two of thousands of articles. What is your answer to all of the rest of them?

Considering you can't research more than a basic Google it was an evaluation of your abilities.

Ad hominem?

I have read the thread. You only convinced those already in the choir. Try convincing someone not part of your faith group, then you would have demonstrated something.

Clearly you have not. Two posters, that I can remember, agreed that the plan of salvation is not falsifiable. Secondly, nobody can be convinced to believe in christianity. It is personal.

Ah so you are going to stick to your statement all while demonstrating you complete lack of ability to understand let alone use logic.

Ad hominem?

Again you display you do not understand logic. When you mention how many people agree or their opinions of you this is an ad populum argument. When X amount of people support a view that it must be true. It has nothing to do with politics. Saying X people think A or Y people like B is an ad populum, look it up some time.

I did look it up and this was the result.

Yes it is a reflection between good and bad ideas, good and bad arguments. However you failed the filter test with your using of fallacious reasoning.

Fallacious reasoning is not welcome here. You are the only one who understands it so if it had a place you would be at a unfair advantage.

You are as per the link of the actually study showing that parts of the articles were never made by the doctor in question. One man makes no such statements and the other is a quack.

What about the thousands of other articles and papers.

Did you missed the work "metaphorical"? Do you know what this work means. The brain and body communication is basic observation. Poke your skin and observe. If you looked at the study I linked one Dr makes no claims of memory or characteristic transfer at all. So one man does not say what you claim. Agin the other guy is a quack selling what amounts to Scientology devices for the gullible with no one peer-reviewed study. That is the different between credible and being a quack. The different between proper research and your confirmation bias.

You are very judgemental without any evidentiary reasoning for it.

No you lied.

I never lie

You made a claim that these two made support everything you post including memory/charactistic transfer. One did no such thing and the other has no published studies at all. When I linked you the actual study proving parts are additions by other people. The study I posted showed a relation between emotions, stress etc but does not say memories are in the heart. Read the study I posted. You won't though as it proves you are wrong and a liar.

What about the thousand of other articles and published papers. What about the increasing interest in the phenomenon by everyone in exact science whilst you try and stifle progression by Pooh poohing it. Thank goodness you are not in main stream science. How many break through would you try and stop just in case it verify some religious doctrine,

Learn to read more carefully and understand what the words posted. As per above you clearly have cognitive issues.

Ad hominem?

If it breaks down causality becomes moot so it no longer works. No time, no causality, no space, no causality

Sorry, causality is not up for discussion here, at least not with me, but I have told you this many times now.

Yes I do as philosophy is under the arts department at SFU. It is required for the MA and PhD programs. You would know this if you had taken philosophy yourself. At least have a B/A is a far cry above a person with no formal education in the field at all. You or others personal opinions on what courses I have under my belts is an ad hominem. You neither criticized my arguments but instead try to disparate my choice of career path. Being an enginner does not make you an expect on anything but engineer. Nice ego you have there. My point still stands. I never claimed in general you were uneducated but that you are uneducated in logic and philosophy. Have a degree(s) in other fields in no way changes that point

Philosophy is misplaced in a debate where you are the only one qualified in the discipline. It makes for a one sided debate. Please try and keep to the type of debate that everyone understands.

You asked me remember. Also considering you repeated a quote when I repeated told you I was not talking about the quote shows either you have memory or reading comprehension issues.

Ad hominem ?

General and special relativity break down at the quantum level as does causality hence quantum indeterminacy. At the pre-BB singularity level there is no time nor space which is required for causality. Classical physics does properly work at the quantum level, this has been known for decades. So one can not make a statement casuality is universal without invoking the problem of induction. One can not claim everything has a cause when everything in fact does not have a detectable cause. It is fallacious thinking. If you understood the mechanic of causality you wouldn't misunderstand his point.

Causality is not being debated in this thread.

You quote him from a separate thread, you brought causality into the thread. You also brought up cosmology pages ago. Do not bring up a topic if you do not want to discuss it.

Yes I did quote him from the thread that holds the post that was responsible for my change of mind. Yes, cosmology was mentioned, so what?

You brought up cosmology pages ago. I am just pointing out your use of Kalam then you rejection of the basic principles of the prime mover. I am showing how inconsistent you are. You accept argument A then claim you do not follow argument A.

That was another thread that was debating a different OP. You are using my post from another thread to discredit me and not to further the debate. It is a desperate act to gain at least one point. You were the same when debating on that thread, desperate to get at least one point in your favour but achieving none.

A certificate at the least shows one has a formal education and is accredited compared to someone without any sort of certificate in this field. I am not bragging as you asked me about my education remember? Do you see it as bragging since I am certified in a certain topic while you are not? Besides you brought up your education first then proved that you have none in philosophy.

A certificate is a piece of paper that is not necessary to acquire knowledge. That is the attitude of an intellectual snob.

Well justified opinion which makes it valid. As per the mistakes you have made in the course of this thread.

You are not qualified to make such a judgement. Nobody else has said so.

Apparently not since you have yet to address anything in my first post. Rather you go off-topic once someone post an argument you are unable to form a rebuttal to.

Ad hominem?

As I you. However my first post was very neutral. You rejected this metaphorical olive branch, went straight into fallacious arguments, refused to address anything in my first post and continue to go off into useless banter.

That olive branch was a bramble bush. What you say of me is more suited to yourself.

Other Christian's beliefs are irrelevant and a fallacious points, ad populum. Run to the choir if you want, it only shows that you need your social and emotion safety net when confront with arguments you are unable to address.

When ever I have been faced with any argument that I am unable to address I will say so and save a great deal of time and effort.

No MY philosophy but philosophy and logic in general. Fallacious reasoning is not part of MY philosophy, it is part of the whole field. You go ahead and disagree with that which you do not understand nor can utilize properly.

That only posses a problem if I were the only one here who fully understands it but the opposite is true to this thread is not the place to insist on philosophical accuracies. It is unnecessary it's gaining a suitable conclusion to the debate and only benefits you.

It is better suited to philosophers and those that understand in general .

True, so let's omit it from this debate.

So you make a post claiming you faith is logical then expect others to prove it wrong. This is not how the burden of proof works. First you must demonstrate is logical. No rational person makes an unsubstantiated claim then demands other to prove them wrong.

Everyone else who has contributed to the thread knows exactly what I am asking. You are the only one who has got it all wrong.

There is a pink dragon in my closet, prove me wrong! Irrational people are hilarious.

It has been done, but as you read the thread you would know that. Only it was a purple dragon that was used.

No I read them, I found your past points as well as your current points to be fallacious thus illogical.

Yes, you would, but that is because you have a B/A in philosophy and nobody else here has, or cares about your logical fallacies. I notice that you have not mention the grade you got. Is it because it was a third or a pass?

 

[McBell]

I notice that you have not mention the grade you got. Is it because it was a third or a pass?

For all the whining you do about ad hominems, it is interesting how you do not hesitate to engage in the practice yourself.