Potency

[Linusthe2nd]

Who exactly is “my side”?
And I have not asserted my opinions over and over and over, I have argued for my position over and over and over, but you have failed over and over and over to respond to my arguments.
Which leads me to think that you are a man of Faith because you can’t be logical.
Nothing wrong with that, but impossible to have a rational conversation with such a person.

You just proved my point. Your side makes the inexplicable assertion that they have a cornor on logic.

Although, I did get one to admit that their position was an act of Faith, though I have not seen this person around for awhile. Of course you will say they are simply wrong. But the truth is that it takes a greater act of faith to be an atheist than to be a Christian.

Linus2nd

 

[belorg]

You just proved my point. Your side makes the inexplicable assertion that they have a cornor on logic.

Although, I did get one to admit that their position was an act of Faith, though I have not seen this person around for awhile. Of course you will say they are simply wrong. But the truth is that it takes a greater act of faith to be an atheist than to be a Christian.

Linus2nd

Every “side” that uses logic thinks their logic is superior to the other “side’s”.

I will not say they are simply wrong. Of course some people’s atheism is an act of Faith. Mine isn’t, though.
My atheism just takes a greater understanding of logic than to be a Christian.

 

[tonyrey]

So, when I say, “Yes, I believe in total uncertainty”, this implies certainty and when I say, “No” this also implies certainty?
I love Catholic logic.

“No, no and no” indicates uncertainty only for a inconsistent sceptic…

 

[tonyrey]

Who exactly is “my side”?
And I have not asserted my opinions over and over and over, I have argued for my position over and over and over, but you have failed over and over and over to respond to my arguments.
Which leads me to think that you are a man of Faith because you can’t be logical.
Nothing wrong with that, but impossible to have a rational conversation with such a person.

You are a man of Faith in the power of inanimate matter.

 

[belorg]

You are a man of Faith in the power of inanimate matter.

This is getting silly, Tony.

 

[tonyrey]

This is getting silly, Tony.

I agree that it is silly to have faith in the power of inanimate matter.

Dawkins - atheist of course - defines “faith as mere belief without evidence” (which certainly applies to the power of inanimate matter to produce rational beings).

 

[belorg]

I agree that it is silly to have faith in the power of inanimate matter.

Dawkins - atheist of course - defines “faith as mere belief without evidence” (which certainly applies to the power of inanimate matter to produce rational beings).

I don’t have faith in the power of inanimate matter. Right now, all evidence indicates that it is more probable that inanimate matter can produce rational beings than that some being, can, by simply wishing so, turn nothing into something that is rational.
At least we have some idea of how inanimate matter could have ‘produced’ rational beings while there isn’t even a hint of a process why which nothingness can be turned into something.

But, as I said, if evidence is produced, I, as a non-believer, am willing to change my mind. the question is: are you ** as a believer** also willing to do so?
That’s the difference between a belief and a theory

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I don’t have faith in the power of inanimate matter. Right now, all evidence indicates that it is more probable that inanimate matter can produce rational beings than that some being, can, by simply wishing so, turn nothing into something that is rational

Incredible, you are ascribing to dumb matter a power intelligent man himself doesn’t have.
We exist and the universe exists because such things demand an intelligent source of their existence, powers, and operations that is not a part of the system. This we determine by inference. That source, since it is not a part of the system, acts by Will not by " wishing. "

.

At least we have some idea of how inanimate matter could have ‘produced’ rational beings while there isn’t even a hint of a process why which nothingness can be turned into something.

We have no idea at all how inanimate could produce rational bings or anything else. And no, we do not know how the intelligent sourse of all beings could do what it does. How can the creature be expected to understand the how of the creator’s operations?

Linus2nd

But, as I said, if evidence is produced, I, as a non-believer, am willing to change my mind. the question is: are you ** as a believer** also willing to do so?
That’s the difference between a belief and a theory

The kind of evidence you ask for is not possible, the divide between the finite and the eternal cannot be breached. I don’t think that will excuse one from acknowledging the demands of reasonable inference. If the only way we can exist is that God exsts, then God exists. To refuse stop at a stop sign simply because one cannot see the justification for the sign is most irrational.

Linus2nd

 

[tonyrey]

I don’t have faith in the power of inanimate matter. Right now, all evidence indicates that it is more probable that inanimate matter can produce rational beings than that some being, can, by simply wishing so, turn nothing into something that is rational.

Is it more probable that** inanimate matter can create** itself plus the power to produce rational beings? If so why?

“some being” indicates no sense of proportion and is a gross underestimate of the immense power required to produce this magnificent universe ** plus rational beings**

At least we have some idea of how inanimate matter could have ‘produced’ rational beings while there isn’t even a hint of a process why which nothingness can be turned into something.

What precisely is that nebulous idea?

But, as I said, if evidence is produced, I, as a non-believer, am willing to change my mind. the question is: are you ** as a believer** also willing to do so?

“as a believer” applies just as appropriately to you - unless you are absolutely certain of something. What makes you think I am in a different category to you?

That’s the difference between a belief and a theory

Don’t you believe the theory? Does your entire world outlook consist of nothing more than theories?

 

[belorg]

Is it more probable that** inanimate matter can create** itself plus the power to produce rational beings? If so why?

“some being” indicates no sense of proportion and is a gross underestimate of the immense power required to produce this magnificent universe ** plus rational beings**

What precisely is that nebulous idea?
“as a believer” applies just as appropriately to you - unless you are absolutely certain of something. What makes you think I am in a different category to you?

Don’t you believe the theory? Does your entire world outlook consist of nothing more than theories?

My entire world outlook consists of nothing more than theories. The rest if your post has nothing whatsoever to do with anything I have said.

 

[belorg]

Incredible, you are ascribing to dumb matter a power intelligent man himself doesn’t have.
We exist and the universe exists because such things demand an intelligent source of their existence, powers, and operations that is not a part of the system. This we determine by inference. That source, since it is not a part of the system, acts by Will not by " wishing. "

Argument from ignorance.
.

We have no idea at all how inanimate could produce rational bings or anything else. And no, we do not know how the intelligent sourse of all beings could do what it does. How can the creature be expected to understand the how of the creator’s operations?

You have no idea, but I do.

The kind of evidence you ask for is not possible, the divide between the finite and the eternal cannot be breached. I don’t think that will excuse one from acknowledging the demands of reasonable inference. If the only way we can exist is that God exsts, then God exists. To refuse stop at a stop sign simply because one cannot see the justification for the sign is most irrational.

Linus2nd

Reasonable inference tells me there is most probably no God.

 

[SentinelofTruth]

belorg, you are dodging the question at every turn. If you’re going to say:

belorg:

Argument from ignorance.

Please say what is ignorant about the argument. And if you say:

belorg:

You have no idea, but I do.

Couldn’t you have said what the idea is?

belorg:

Reasonable inference tells me there is most probably no God.

Please explain how reason has led you to this conclusion.

Linusthe2nd:

And no, we do not know how the intelligent sourse of all beings could do what it does. How can the creature be expected to understand the how of the creator’s operations?

Why does God need a “how”? “How” do light waves oscillate? “How” do oppositely charged particles attract eachother? “How” does mass bend space?
You see? You can’t just keep asking how forever. Eventually, you will reach an “it just does” point.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Why does God need a “how”? “How” do light waves oscillate? “How” do oppositely charged particles attract eachother? “How” does mass bend space?
You see? You can’t just keep asking how forever. Eventually, you will reach an “it just does” point.

He doesn’t and I agree. I was asking that of Berlog.

Linus2nd

 

[belorg]

belorg, you are dodging the question at every turn. If you’re going to say:

Please say what is ignorant about the argument.

“I do not know how we and this universe came into existence, therefore an intelligent source is required” is a standard argument from ignorance because it is not because Linus or you cannot think of another way that therefore there is no other way.

And if you say:

Couldn’t you have said what the idea is?

Everybody who has done a minimal amount of reading on the matter knows what the idea is.

Please explain how reason has led you to this conclusion.

Read the whole thread, please.

Why does God need a “how”? “How” do light waves oscillate? “How” do oppositely charged particles attract eachother? “How” does mass bend space?
You see? You can’t just keep asking how forever. Eventually, you will reach an “it just does” point.

if God is supposed to be an explanation, then God needs a how.

 

[SentinelofTruth]

“I do not know how we and this universe came into existence, therefore an intelligent source is required” is a standard argument from ignorance because it is not because Linus or you cannot think of another way that therefore there is no other way.

This is a dreadful mischaracterization of our argument. It’s not that we “don’t understand” how the universe could create itself, it’s that we do understand that it can’t. If our reasoning says something can’t happen, we have excellent grounds for believing it can’t happen.

belorg:

if God is supposed to be an explanation, then God needs a how.

God is the how.

belorg:

Everybody who has done a minimal amount of reading on the matter knows what the idea is.

Evolution is clearly a flawed idea. Sadly, however, I can’t refute it, because the topic is banned.

 

[belorg]

This is a dreadful mischaracterization of our argument. It’s not that we “don’t understand” how the universe could create itself, it’s that we do understand that it can’t. If our reasoning says something can’t happen, we have excellent grounds for believing it can’t happen.

Please read the thread before you reply, because I have never claimed that the universe can create itself.

God is the how.

The universe is the how.

Evolution is clearly a flawed idea. Sadly, however, I can’t refute it, because the topic is banned.

I am pleased to hear you are smarter than the Pope and most Catholic scientists. Because they accept it.

 

[SentinelofTruth]

belorg:

The universe is the how.

No, the universe is the what.

belorg:

I am pleased to hear you are smarter than the Pope and most Catholic scientists. Because they accept it.

What? You mean you’re not an evolutionist? That’s really surprising for an atheist.

PS: I am not going to read five long pages of debate that took place before I got here.

 

[tonyrey]

Is it more probable that inanimate matter can create itself plus the power to produce rational beings? If so why?

We shall have to call you the Unartful Dodger! My statements are responses to statements you have made in your last post but one.

If your entire world outlook consists of nothing more than theories then the reality of truth is a theory and you may be spouting nonsense - including the assertion that my post has nothing whatsoever to do with anything you have said…

Nothing shall come of nothing.

 

[belorg]

No, the universe is the what.

What? You mean you’re not an evolutionist? That’s really surprising for an atheist.

PS: I am not going to read five long pages of debate that took place before I got here.

If you are not interested in a serious discussion, then please stop interfering.

 

[belorg]

We shall have to call you the Unartful Dodger! My statements are responses to statements you have made in your last post but one.

If your entire world outlook consists of nothing more than theories then the reality of truth is a theory and you may be spouting nonsense - including the assertion that my post has nothing whatsoever to do with anything you have said…

Nothing shall come of nothing.

They are responses to your own misunderstanding of my statements.

And of course I may be spouting nonsense, but a theory can be disproved by providing evidence against it, which seems rather difficult to do by spouting irrelevant responses.