25
   

Critical thinking on the existence of God

 
 
Tuna
 
  0  
Reply Mon 7 Dec, 2015 10:32 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
Quote:
You are quite right it is a trivial statement...the point being regarding nature how could it not be ? Any other definition is not only false but foolish !


I take it you're asking what is entailed by the image of a defiance of nature. The answer is dualism.

Just to recap: Metaphysical naturalism is not a thesis about language use. It does not define "supernatural" as "non-existent." It asserts that supernatural causes are non-existent.

The skeptic of naturalism carries no burden to prove that there are supernatural causes or to explain what "supernatural" means. The naturalist should be able to explain what it is he or she is saying is non-existent.
manden
 
  0  
Reply Mon 7 Dec, 2015 11:32 am
@Tuna,
The universe can ONLY have been created by an unimaginable superior
logic and power .
That is simple logic . But incredibly difficult to understand for members of
the corrupt and ill mankind .
Tuna
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Dec, 2015 11:39 am
@manden,
Quote:
The universe can ONLY have been created by an unimaginable superior
logic and power .
That is simple logic . But incredibly difficult to understand for members of
the corrupt and ill mankind .

Start a thread on cosmological arguments and we'll discuss it.
manden
 
  0  
Reply Mon 7 Dec, 2015 11:52 am
@Tuna,
There is nothing to discuss .

That you must recognize ! (for yourself)
What helps : Men can create NOTHING with their logic and power , only
make something out of already existing .
human logic = all has a (human) cause
superior logic = we cannot crasp the cause
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Dec, 2015 01:43 pm
@manden,
Quote:
Men can create NOTHING with their logic and power , only make something out of already existing .
You did qualify your statement, but it is important not to overstate your case if you want to convince others.

Man HAS done some amazing work in figuring out creation. But for the most part he is deluding himself that he is making original discoveries rather than merely reverse engineering creation.
manden
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 7 Dec, 2015 02:31 pm
@Leadfoot,
Fact is : men cannot create something .
create means make without already existing .

To say what is to say I need only 5 or 6 normal sentences .
The men think , that is to easy , it must be a thick book with many stories
like the religions ( adventure , fight , miracles , angels , devil and all that
nonsense ) . So the truth has almost no chance , till there is somebody who
can think almost perfect (simple) logic .
FBM
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Dec, 2015 07:02 pm
@manden,
manden wrote:

Evidence as you want , is not possible .
...


And the most reasonable explanation for this is... http://i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb192/DinahFyre/teaemoticonbygmintyfresxa4.gif
0 Replies
 
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Dec, 2015 08:18 pm
@manden,
Quote:
So the truth has almost no chance
There are many reasons for that. One is the abundance of counterfeits.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  3  
Reply Mon 7 Dec, 2015 08:25 pm
@manden,
manden wrote:
Fact is : men cannot create something .
create means make without already existing


This is not true. It is not true in terms of the meaning of the word in English, nor is true in any reasonable epistemological sense. I don't speak German, but i suspect that's not true in German, either.

You must make sh*t up and then expect not only to be taken seriously, but to be taken as an authority. You're not an authority, and you're not even coherent. It's also insufferable arrogance for someone whose English is as appalling bad as yours it to tell native-speakers of English what words in English mean.
manden
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 8 Dec, 2015 01:49 am
@Setanta,
What I said is 100% true .
You have no idea . Try to inform !
(English is not the Problem - Y O U are the problem !)
Setanta
 
  3  
Reply Tue 8 Dec, 2015 01:53 am
@manden,
No, i don't have a problem. You, however, are seriously deluded--but that's not a problem for me.
0 Replies
 
layman
 
  0  
Reply Tue 8 Dec, 2015 04:48 am
@Setanta,
Quote:
someone whose English is as appalling bad as yours


It could be worse, eh? It could be appallingly bad.
0 Replies
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Dec, 2015 05:33 am
@Tuna,
You see the problem is due to giving to much credit to the obscure coinage "materialism" entails...abstract or concrete there is the existent, the natural, the factual, and the non existent, or the perception error, which is a problem of knoweledge not of Nature. Nature referes to whats is material or otherwise. Nuance is lacking here. Hope I could clarify it.

I dislike materialism and am all for metaphysics, but don't confuse metaphysics with super natural no matter the silly classical definitons....I work with my "language" not with borrowed concepts. Above all, I can justify it.
FBM
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Dec, 2015 05:48 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
Your comment here piques my interest. If you don't mind, would you elaborate on what you mean when you say "metaphysics"? It connotes a wide variety of different things to different people.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Dec, 2015 05:48 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
By your token Tuna, Eintein's relativity would be unatural because it is odd...poor concepts are tricky business and philosophy has the responsability to clarify them to avoid bad science...

(Fed up with shity debates where international renowed names lack conceptual lingo clarity n spout out nonsense...it gives a poor image of the species...we look like monkeys around a honey tree...)
0 Replies
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Dec, 2015 05:55 am
@FBM,
I simply mean that materialism is one of the worst most obscure concepts we keep around...mathemathics is very real for me and yet not material. Same goes with information (not the carrier of information).
Meta physics falsely and classically presumes supra natural foundation, I disagree. One thing is to dismiss materialism another to dismiss reality, or Nature...
FBM
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Dec, 2015 06:16 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
I think I sort of have an idea of what you're point at, but am having trouble with this: "I dislike materialism and am all for metaphysics..." juxtaposed to this: "Meta physics falsely and classically presumes supra natural foundation, I disagree."

I know I'm missing something or misunderstanding something, but you seem to be very philosophically literate, so I'm interested in understanding you more clearly. Please fill in the gaps that I need to understand you.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Dec, 2015 06:16 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
In one shot, I connote Metaphysics with meta materialism and an holistic understanding of spacetime. Just that.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Dec, 2015 06:22 am
@FBM,
You're wrong I am not philosophically literate I am a self made man who has read some stuff but above all thought about it all my life...and yes often my coinage is "confusing" in the sense it is profoundly distinct from the common usage. I have always been a rebel in regards to classical academic studies, one of those guys who makes no concessions...I have my fair share of admirers in high places but I never gave a frack about getting there by trading politics for clarity or personal pursue of knowledge. Well I am ranting now dismiss my deviation from the topic...

PS - Being an A+ student didn't help...
0 Replies
 
FBM
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Dec, 2015 06:37 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
Just probing here, one A+ student to another. Wink It seems to me that spacetime is a more holisitc concept than either space or time. There used to be the push in physics for a GUT or TOE, though I think that push has largely been abandoned. I may be wrong. Just wondering if you're contra holism in principle, and if so, why. Not declaring myself to be in favor of it, mind you...
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 08/11/2020 at 07:36:57