View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently August 2nd, 2014, 3:25 am



Reply to topic  [ 808 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41  Next
 Arguments for the existence of God 
Author Message
User avatar

Joined: July 4th, 2007, 3:35 pm
Posts: 10234
Location: Shetland
Mick, it''s a bit sad that you "religious" folk need to seek approval for your delusions from non believers, what is it with you guys? Do you think the more folk that profess "belief" The more likely it is to be true? That's not how it works.

I don't think you'll win any converts on this forum so what are you doing here?
Bolstering you're own credulity?
38 pages of circular reasoning" I think it's time to move on.

_________________
Abstinence Makes the Church Grow Fondlers.


January 14th, 2011, 11:44 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm
Posts: 4366
Location: "mysterious east" grinstead
mickeyd wrote:
Animist,

I see, so any one who disagrees with you is full of pride? Doesn't that mean your full of pride?


Mick

no, Mick, it's just you. Bye, and I really am not saying any more. You will have had the last word, no doubt, bully for you!


January 14th, 2011, 11:50 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: July 4th, 2007, 3:35 pm
Posts: 10234
Location: Shetland
Quote:
Mickey Dolenz (monkey)
I see, so any one who disagrees with you is full of pride? Doesn't that mean your (sic) full of pride?
A typical fundie spelling mistake is a good way to bow out mick,
Bye, close the door on your way out.

_________________
Abstinence Makes the Church Grow Fondlers.


January 15th, 2011, 12:11 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: July 4th, 2007, 10:10 am
Posts: 9159
Location: Darkest Kent
mickeyd wrote:
Nick wrote:
Why should theism provide a better explanation for consciousness than deism?
Because (a) God did not create the universe out of himself
WTF? How the hell did you get there?

Quote:
(pantheism, which is logically invalid)
a) who (TF) mentioned pantheism? b) why is it invalid? and c) please explain the logic. :shrug:

Quote:
and therefore it depends on his continuous creative activity every moment of its being,
a) WTF does that mean? b) why? c) WFT does that mean, again?

Quote:
which is the antithesis of deism,
because? :shrug: Can you provide a single logical piece of evidence why this may be so, let alone conclusive evidence why it is so?

Quote:
and (b) consciousness is a creation ex nihilo within a universal creation ex nihilo,
WTF are you on about? Really, have you been at the sauce? I have no idea what you are talking about. Is it possible to provide any evidence? Or even any explanation? Have you any idea how absurd that sounds IRL?


Quote:
since it cannot be explained in terms of any of its unconscious antecedents;
I don't think you words are capable of explanation! WTF are you on about?

Quote:
therefore,
How have you prove it's causation?

Quote:
it's emergence cannot be accounted for by the deistic hypothesis.
Bollox. I am no clearer about you argument than when you started.

Quote:
As for the rest of your post, refer to my latest post to thundril.
Which leaves me still in the dark about any justification.

Quote:
Cheers,
Hmmm... have you been drinking....?

Should I have been drinking....?


January 15th, 2011, 12:43 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: July 4th, 2007, 11:56 am
Posts: 3229
Location: Balloch, Scotland
I would stand you a pint Nick

_________________
"Who thinks the law has anything to do with justice? It's what we have because we can't have justice."
William McIlvanney


January 15th, 2011, 1:17 am
Profile WWW

Joined: July 4th, 2008, 5:02 pm
Posts: 3014
I think we can all have a pint now.
Anyway, what happened to 'Arguments for the existence of MickeyD?
If he didn't exist would we have to invent him?


January 15th, 2011, 2:02 am
Profile

Joined: September 1st, 2007, 3:48 pm
Posts: 445
Location: Glasgow
mickeyd wrote:
Hi Thundril,

Quote:
Theists cannot 'prove' the existence of god by logic, and atheists cannot 'prove' the non-existence of god by logical wrangling either.


Agreed.

But then the best explanation is the one which encompasses the widest range of phenomena under consideration [...]


Apologies to thundril for butting in.

mickeyd, what exactly did you agree with when you said " Agreed"?

On the face of it, you have simply abandoned your initial claim to have proof. But the fact that you have carried on suggests that you have not abandoned the claim at all. And that suggestion is fortified by what you go on to say about best explanation and so on.

What's going on? Have you abandoned your claim? Or are you now defining it? Or are you implying that the burden of proof has shifted? Or something else entirely?

_________________
What we can't say, we can't say and we can't whistle it either. — Frank Ramsey


January 15th, 2011, 2:16 am
Profile

Joined: September 6th, 2010, 10:54 am
Posts: 143
Thundril,

Where you're wrong is in asserting that rationality and logic are one and the same, and that therefore a rational proof of a proposition, whilst it cannot be contrary to logic, necessarily depends on logic to refute every alternative proposition. Your completely ignoring all the logical paradoxes, which are products of human rationality, yet are logically irresolvable. Rationality does not equal logic.

Your concept of rationality is too narrow and reflects the malaise in philosophy inflicted by logical positivism.

Cheers,
Mick


January 15th, 2011, 1:58 pm
Profile

Joined: September 6th, 2010, 10:54 am
Posts: 143
Hi animist,

Look, let's get one thing straight. There are people on this earth who respect me, and they don't do so because I'm full of pride. So I regard your comment as a silly outburst.

We have engaged in debate on the question of whether or not something can from nothing. Part of my response to your position is to point out to you your own statement, namely, that you find the notion of something from nothing hard to believe, and then to query the reason(s) why you find it hard. This is part of my answer to you. I've explained in detail why I reject the notion, essentially because I believe it attributes a functionality to non-existence that is meaningless to assert - it's to use words without meaning.

Cheerio,
Mick


January 15th, 2011, 2:22 pm
Profile

Joined: July 4th, 2008, 5:02 pm
Posts: 3014
Lord Muck oGentry wrote:


Apologies to thundril for butting in.


No probs, LMo'G, I'd finished anyway.


January 15th, 2011, 4:37 pm
Profile

Joined: September 6th, 2010, 10:54 am
Posts: 143
Hi Lord Muck,

Quote:
What's going on? Have you abandoned your claim? Or are you now defining it? Or are you implying that the burden of proof has shifted? Or something else entirely?


I'm talking about 'proof'. What is sad about listening to Thundril is that he wants to restrict the human mind to being nothing but a logic unit, a computer.

I simply do not believe that anyone, in their heart of hearts, can really believe that the universe 'just is'. I can't logically invalidate the proposition, and that's why I'm taking flak. But sometimes you just have to put your hand up and say "No way", whether others call you a fool or not.

Cheers,
Mick


January 15th, 2011, 8:48 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: July 6th, 2007, 8:29 pm
Posts: 5229
Location: Scotland
mickeyd wrote:
I simply do not believe that anyone, in their heart of hearts, can really believe that the universe 'just is'.


Which, rather beautifully I think, exemplifies the difference between your stance and mine.
I am perfectly content - in my heartiest of heartiests - to really believe the universe just is. There is no need for me to fill in that current gap of knowledge with a creator. That's what got us into this mess in the first place...

Until proved otherwise, which has patently yet to be done here, "just is" is fine by me.


January 15th, 2011, 9:44 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: July 4th, 2007, 3:35 pm
Posts: 10234
Location: Shetland
Quote:
mick
I'm talking about 'proof'.
Are you having a laugh? You've provided zero proof for any of your assertions in the whole 39 pages of this topic.

Quote:
What is sad about listening to Thundril is that he wants to restrict the human mind to being nothing but a logic unit,
There is no restriction involved, the human mind is a logic unit (unless it has been high jacked by one of the "religious" cults.
Quote:
I simply do not believe that anyone, in their heart of hearts, can really believe that the universe 'just is'.
I do. What's your alternative? That the universe "just isn't" and we're all living in some kind of matrix?
Quote:
I can't logically invalidate the proposition,

No surprise there then.
Quote:
and that's why I'm taking flak. But sometimes you just have to put your hand up and say "No way", whether others call you a fool or not.
Fool.

Cross posting with Fia.

_________________
Abstinence Makes the Church Grow Fondlers.


January 15th, 2011, 9:46 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: July 4th, 2007, 8:53 pm
Posts: 4079
Location: Badenoch
Fia wrote:
mickeyd wrote:
...Until proved otherwise, which has patently yet to be done here, "just is" is fine by me....
And me.

_________________
Carpe diem. Savour every moment.


January 15th, 2011, 10:53 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: July 4th, 2007, 10:10 am
Posts: 9159
Location: Darkest Kent
Yup. Me too. :)


January 16th, 2011, 1:55 am
Profile

Joined: September 1st, 2007, 3:48 pm
Posts: 445
Location: Glasgow
mickeyd wrote:
Hi Lord Muck,

Quote:
What's going on? Have you abandoned your claim? Or are you now defining it? Or are you implying that the burden of proof has shifted? Or something else entirely?


I'm talking about 'proof'.


That's clear enough. You have, with admirable frankness, abandoned your claim.

Quote:
I simply do not believe that anyone, in their heart of hearts, can really believe that the universe 'just is'. I can't logically invalidate the proposition, and that's why I'm taking flak. But sometimes you just have to put your hand up and say "No way", whether others call you a fool or not.


Well, I shan't call you a fool, but I suggest that you have gone wrong as many others have gone wrong before. Whether the universe just is goes back to the discussion many pages ago about contingency. If by the universe we mean the whole shooting-match, then there is nothing at all left over on which it might or might not be contingent. And the apparent question whether it might be contingent on God trades on uncertainty about counting him in or out of the whole shooting-match.

Mind you, I shan't be surprised if you disagree with my diagnosis...

_________________
What we can't say, we can't say and we can't whistle it either. — Frank Ramsey


January 16th, 2011, 2:01 am
Profile

Joined: July 4th, 2008, 5:02 pm
Posts: 3014
When we stop supposing that beauty, wonder, love, magic, and comedy would have to come from something outside, we can start having some respect for the human mind.
And yes, the human soul.


January 16th, 2011, 2:04 am
Profile

Joined: September 1st, 2007, 3:48 pm
Posts: 445
Location: Glasgow
thundril wrote:
When we stop supposing that beauty, wonder, love, magic, and comedy would have to come from something outside, we can start having some respect for the human mind.
And yes, the human soul.


[A maj]
Brothers and sisters, let me hear an Amen!
[/E fifth]

_________________
What we can't say, we can't say and we can't whistle it either. — Frank Ramsey


January 16th, 2011, 2:28 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm
Posts: 4366
Location: "mysterious east" grinstead
thundril wrote:
When we stop supposing that beauty, wonder, love, magic, and comedy would have to come from something outside, we can start having some respect for the human mind.
And yes, the human soul.

I'll break my vow of silence to second that superb thought, Thun :wink:


January 16th, 2011, 9:27 am
Profile

Joined: September 6th, 2010, 10:54 am
Posts: 143
Dear All,

The proof of God goes beyond logic, it's in your HEARTS and ALL AROUND YOU!

Goodbye and God Bless!

Mike Dyson


January 17th, 2011, 12:18 am
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 808 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
Designed by ST Software for PTF.