Searching for the Truth

[warpspeedpetey]

My previous post highlighted one such assertion. Well, it should be obvious, but the statementsandand are all clear examples of the bare assertion fallacy. You claim it, but can’t prove it. In the first two examples, you don’t know what science will discover. In the third, you provide no yardstick for measuring musical talent, or the extent of your ability to play the ukelele.

the post you refer to #33, i offered the reason for my assertion.specifically as to why science cannot discover a cause for free will. as below from post #33, like 2 inches down. how could you miss that? so it is not the bare assertion fallacy.(get a sense of humor, the ukulele comment is an obvious joke)

physical causation of free will is incompatible with both possible states of the universe, determinant and indeterminant. determinant, you have no choice your act is decision is predetermined from the starting state of the system. indeterminant, each of your decisions is not your choice because they are random.

so, i wasnt just making bare assertions, do you have an actual place this occured? as you have asserted?

btw. i notice you didnt attempt refute my argument. did you plan to address it? with an actual counter argument? usually its just blanket deniuals, but i think you should back those up with a counter argument.

Your statementis also fallacious, because the evidence to which you refer is available to everybody, but it doesn’t stand up to the sort of scrutiny that is necessary for evidence to be ‘beyond reasonable doubt.’

if mathematical evidence of that sort isnt beyond reasonable doubt. then what is your standard of reasonable doubt? i know mathematicians that are convinced by it. you must have an unreasonably high standard. tell me, what is it?

I’ve explained this to you before, but you just deny it without recourse to any kind of justification.

Your method of debating is just to repeat what you said previously, as if stubborn dogmatic repetition somehow adds validity. It doesn’t.

your normal pattern is to cast blanket denials and jump threads when it gets to backing up those denials.

in this case you claim i make bare assertions, and literall.y 2 inches down the page is the argument to support the statements. how could you miss that? i think that my view of the situation is backed by the evidence, and yours isnt as demonstrated by you missing or ignoring the justifications you claim i dont provide.

 

[Joe_Scott]

There is a halfway point and i call it being an agnostic. (not sure wether god exists ot not)

The last day or two I have been doin my research into the Bible and it contridicts it self. In the ten commandments god says “tho shall not kill” but in other chapters he commands people to be killed for working on a sunday.
Second of all I if God created us then he must of given us free will along with it as he is all powerful. But when some poeple use their free will (e.g. become an athiest) then he punishes you for doing so. . . whats the point in giving us free will if he punishes us for using it ?? It just does not make sence to me.

Another this that does not make sence is Jesus. The way the bible talks about him makes him sound like a huge celebrity, performing miricles, attracting thousands of people yet there are no records what so ever of anything like that happening outside of the Bible. If he was such a HUGE impact that even the great Roman Empire saw him as real threat then surely everyone who could write in those days would have written about it. But there is hardly any evidence at all, if not none. To add the miricles part the bible says te God helped the Isrlites (sorry fr the wrong spelling) to get away form Egypt but performing a number of mirlicles, the most famous one when he parted the sea to let them walk through. Ok those people were i need of help and God (being all loveing helped them) fair enough. Then how comes today we have conflicts in the middle east and africa with many more people being killed and displaced than 2000 years ago. Were are God and his mirlices ? He helped Moses a few thosand years ago. . why not help now ? It seems very convient that all he miricles perfomed by Jesus and God have to of happend thosands of years ago so no eyewitness to could say it was true or not and here we are today with no miricles happeing what so ever . . ??

Also Christianity is one of many other religions in the world that caim to be the TRUE religion, what makes you more right/true then lets say Islam for example ? You both base your belifiefs on a Holy book, both worship one God, both have no scientifc evidence of your God . .yet you both claim to the the TURE one. It just does not add up. . how can anyone know who is right if everyone is claiming to be ?

Acording to the Bible God made us in his form. There are to things i don’t get about that. First of all God is clamied to be perfect but humans are far form perfect becuase we get ill, we die, some of us have mental illnesess. . the list goes on but the point is God must not be perfect because he made us humans in his form. Secondly if he did then why us ?
He supposeidly made a universe millions and millons of light years across witch likey is home to millions of other organic life forms. If he did make the universe then why is the whole bible and everything else in Christianity only focus on us humans ? Why would an all powerful God just put his full attention into one tiny speck in the sky ?

Those are just some examples of why Christianity does not make scence to me.
If you want to comment/defend God then feel free to do so

Joe

 

[wanstronian]

the post you refer to #33, i offered the reason for my assertion.specifically as to why science cannot discover a cause for free will. as below from post #33, like 2 inches down. how could you miss that? so it is not the bare assertion fallacy.(get a sense of humor, the ukulele comment is an obvious joke)

Yes, I saw the thread on that a couple weeks ago, and pointed out the flaws then. The same flaws that you’re ignoring now.

so, i wasnt just making bare assertions, do you have an actual place this occured? as you have asserted?

Yes, as I pointed out. Your assertions regarding the impossibility of scientific explanations for free will and self-awareness. You cannot back these assertions up. Or at least, you haven’t. So here’s your chance to make me look stupid. Prove that scientific explanations are impossible.

btw. i notice you didnt attempt refute my argument. did you plan to address it? with an actual counter argument? usually its just blanket deniuals, but i think you should back those up with a counter argument.

I’m not sure which argument you’re talking about now, but it’s hugely ironic that you claim my ‘usual’ reaction is blanket denials. It’s true that where I’ve deconstructed your arguments on other threads, I don’t repeat myself here, but I would think you’d remember.

if mathematical evidence of that sort isnt beyond reasonable doubt. then what is your standard of reasonable doubt? i know mathematicians that are convinced by it. you must have an unreasonably high standard. tell me, what is it?

It’s easy - conclusive evidence. Evidence to that standard that science accepts for every other scientific theory. Unsubjective evidence. Evidence that is convincing only to people who already believe in the conclusion, is not really evidence at all, now is it? Take Aquinas, for example. Debunked many times over, yet you still use it as an argument.

your normal pattern is to cast blanket denials and jump threads when it gets to backing up those denials.

The only time I jump threads is either through circumstance (I’m away from the computer too long and it’s too late to catch up) or when it becomes clear that you are going to argue that black is white because you think you have God on your side. Your post #33: “i meant exactly what i said. there is no possible scientific explanation.” is a case in point. It’s a ridiculous thing to say, for the reasons I have highlighted above.

in this case you claim i make bare assertions, and literall.y 2 inches down the page is the argument to support the statements. how could you miss that? i think that my view of the situation is backed by the evidence, and yours isnt as demonstrated by you missing or ignoring the justifications you claim i dont provide.

I’m not missing them, they just don’t exist. You support your assertions with other assertions and claim QED. It’s just a house of cards with no basis in provable fact.

 

[JP2Admirer]

Joe Scott,

I agree that on the surface the Bible appears to contradict itself. Theologians have grappled with these very issues for centuries. As to God forbidding someone to kill and then commanding people to kill Aquinas answers it like this (I-II q.100 a.9 ad.3)

It is not problematic for God to order someone slain because He is the Lord and giver of Life. As the very maker of life, it is not sinful for him to take life. An analogy would be that you own a television that you use for a footstool in your garage instead of for watching television. It is yours, so you can do with it what you like. If someone were to tell you it was wrong that you used the television in that way, you could simply tell them, “It’s my tv.”)

Secondly, the Ten Commandments are indispensible, meaning that they bind for all everywhere – they are unchangeable. However, whether a particular circumstance is an act of murder depends on the circumstances. In the case of God telling someone to take another’s life, the giver of Life is making that command. So it isn’t as contradictory as it may look on the surface.

I do not think it is accurate to state that there is not much evidence for Christ outside of the Bible (he comes up in either Tacitus or Seutonius as well as Josephus – though this may have been put in by His later disciples.) Quite simply, there is a lot of historical evidence that points to His existence. Even if the Bible were the only record, in itself it is a pretty powerful record. Furthermore, don’t you think there would be political interest amongst the Jews and Romans to keep His miracles quiet?

It is not true that God does not perform miracles today. It is simply that the Bible has been made canonical and cannot be changed. There are many well documented miracles having taken place in the last century.

As far as Christianity and other sects vying for allegiance – all religions possess some truth’s or they wouldn’t have adherents. Nonetheless, the Catholic claim has been the claim that it possesses all of the truth. As far as determining what is truer than another, you have to listen to both your head and your heart. Spend some time on the non-Catholic religion debate forums right here to see where the truth lies. For me, the Church convinced me on an intellectual level and an emotional level. No truer words have ever been spoken than those of Christ. Other faith’s seem to mimic Him to one degree or another. All I can say is compare and contrast. Read the Fathers, read Newman, read Augustine, read Aquinas. They will convince you if you are open to being convinced.

It is certainly possible that God created other intelligent beings – we know for certain He created angelic intellects. Man is in the image of God insofar as man has an intellect. We have an immaterial component to our forms. Therefore, we image God. You are specifically speaking of corruption, i.e. if we are perfect, then why are we corrupt. I suggest the 7th Book of Augustine’s *Confessions, *(his Neo-Platonic quest). Furthermore, try understanding what happened at the Fall. (Incidentally, I just blogged about this today on my blog – the tone there is aggressive, so if it put’s you off, study about the Fall elsewhere.) As far as suffering is concerned, this is the toughest issue we face – indeed, I wrote a Master’s thesis on the very topic because it was so problematic for me. Corruption and death made possible the Incarnation, which explains why corruption was allowed to happen.

Many of the questions you have raised are questions I once had too. There are answers that will satisfy you intellectually if you are just willing to look. At least that was my experience.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Yes, I saw the thread on that a couple weeks ago, and pointed out the flaws then. The same flaws that you’re ignoring now.

again blanket denials. what flaws are you refering to be specific.

Yes, as I pointed out. Your assertions regarding the impossibility of scientific explanations for free will and self-awareness. You cannot back these assertions up. Or at least, you haven’t. So here’s your chance to make me look stupid. Prove that scientific explanations are impossible.

i already have and i just pointed it out again. i will do so yet again.

physical causation of free will is incompatible with both possible states of the universe, determinant and indeterminant. determinant, you have no choice your act is decision is predetermined from the starting state of the system. indeterminant, each of your decisions is not your choice because they are random.

what part doesnt make sense to you? defeat this argument. dont just make more blanket denials. tell me why this argument is wrong.

I’m not sure which argument you’re talking about now, but it’s hugely ironic that you claim my ‘usual’ reaction is blanket denials. It’s true that where I’ve deconstructed your arguments on other threads, I don’t repeat myself here, but I would think you’d remember.

what you do is make blanket assertions and then run when i refute them. instead of defending them. that is not the same thing as not repeating yourself. i expect you to defend youre assertions just as i do.

It’s easy - conclusive evidence.

that is conclusivve evidence. there is no third state of the universe. its either determinant or indetreminant, there is no where else to go.

Evidence to that standard that science accepts for every other scientific theory.

are you talking about empirical evidence? thats the standard for the scientific method.

if you say, empiricism is true, than i shall need empirical evidence of it. and i dont think that you have conclusive evidence that empiricism is true. i think it is just your faith.

that said why would i give you empirical evidence for a metaphysical argument? you didnt know that we are talking about metaphysics? how is that possible? would you ask for empirical evidence of theories involving hypercubes? like you might find one if you only looked hard enough? of course not.

Unsubjective evidence. Evidence that is convincing only to people who already believe in the conclusion, is not really evidence at all, now is it? Take Aquinas, for example. Debunked many times over, yet you still use it as an argument.

what is ‘unsubjective evidence’ ive never heard of that.

and how is Thomism something that you already have to believe in the conclusion? and where has it been debunked

more blanket assertions.

The only time I jump threads is either through circumstance (I’m away from the computer too long and it’s too late to catch up) or when it becomes clear that you are going to argue that black is white because you think you have God on your side. Your post #33: “i meant exactly what i said. there is no possible scientific explanation.”

that was said, because you claimed in post #27

"For both of these, you are conflating ‘possible’ with ‘current.’ "

obviously i wasnt. i meant exactly what i said, no ‘current’ to it.

at that point you should have apprised me to why i was incorrect. you dont seem to think you need to defend your statements. once said thats the end of the matter. so maybe you dont think your jumping threads, but thats the score when you dont defend your statements and just leave.

I’m not missing them, they just don’t exist. You support your assertions with other assertions and claim QED. It’s just a house of cards with no basis in provable fact.

ill just repeat the previous part on youre standard of evidence.

i addressed the idea of empirical evidence abovge, now i see that you think emprical evidence applies to more than science.

are you talking about empirical evidence? thats the standard for the scientific method.

if you say, empiricism is true, than i shall need empirical evidence of it. and i dont think that you have conclusive evidence that empiricism is true. i think it is just your faith.

that said why would i give you empirical evidence for a metaphysical argument? you didnt know that we are talking about metaphysics? how is that possible? would you ask for empirical evidence of theories involving hypercubes? like you might find one if you only looked hard enough? of course not.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

There is a halfway point and i call it being an agnostic. (not sure wether god exists ot not)

hi joe. im sorry if i came off flip. alot of people ask what you did too start, but they really already know what they believe and they just want to make fun of us.

that said.

lets talk about some of the questions you have here.

The last day or two I have been doin my research into the Bible and it contridicts it self. In the ten commandments god says “tho shall not kill” but in other chapters he commands people to be killed for working on a sunday.

youre right, it seems contradictory, but suppose your dad said, “dont play that music so loud”. but then heard something he wanted to know and said “turn that up”

i suppose that is contradictory. but its not really a problem with your dad is it?

then alot of people want to say that G-d is wrong for killing people, even when they deserve it. they say this because to them, death is a horrible thing, its something that we all try to avoid.

but think about it from G-ds point of view, death is nothing to him. its not as though He is wiping them from existence, they are still “alive”, they still exist. its just a punishment. from G-ds point of view, He put them in time out, or say, grounded them from life, so to speak. so what seems so bad to us, really isnt bad at all. its fair and just. it scares us, but He knows death is not permanent.

Second of all I if God created us then he must of given us free will along with it as he is all powerful. But when some poeple use their free will (e.g. become an athiest) then he punishes you for doing so. . . whats the point in giving us free will if he punishes us for using it ?? It just does not make sence to me.

He doesnt punish you, He allows you to use your free will. you can separate yourself from G-d. this state of separation is called Hell.

He wants you to freely choose to Love Him. but you have to Love Him for who He is. there are things that He Loves and things that He doesnt, just like us. just as you want a woman to love you for the kind of man you are, whether you are brave, good hearted or smart. G-d wants us to love Him for who He is. to do that we have to know and follow certain rules because that is loving him. if you did things that your girlfriend didnt like, her “rules” then you would be choosing to upset her, and before long you would be breaking up with her. its the same way with G-d. but because we have free will, G-d knows that we will often do things that displease Him. but His Love is so great that He will give you every possible chance to Love Him. unfortunately, some people put their feelings and desires before G-ds all the time, and like any relationship you do that in, you ruin it.

Another this that does not make sence is Jesus. The way the bible talks about him makes him sound like a huge celebrity, performing miricles, attracting thousands of people yet there are no records what so ever of anything like that happening outside of the Bible. If he was such a HUGE impact that even the great Roman Empire saw him as real threat then surely everyone who could write in those days would have written about it. But there is hardly any evidence at all, if not none.

suppose you found a book that told part of a story one day, then later somewhere else you found another book by a different author, that told another part of the same story. after a while you had several dozen books that all told parts of the same story. wouldnt you think that each book supported the other? wouldnt the story seem true? maybe you would put all those books on your shelf, and let your friends read the whole story at one time.

but one friend might say, this story isnt true because only the books on your shelf tell the story, there are no other books that do. you would know that isnt a good objection because you gathered all the books together yourself. you put all the books that corroborate the story together on the shelf.

same way with the Bible. the Bible is a compilation of books that all tell the same story of G-ds relationship with man, over a long time.

now we also have to consider that Judea was a backwater to the roman empire, it was like being in kansas. do you know who the most famous person in kansas is? neither do i and i live here! Jesus wasnt a threat to the roman empire, the Jews wanted Him killed, but they didnt have the right to because that was the right of the roman empire.

now when Christianity got to be a bigger force than just 12 men following 1 rabbi around out in the middle of nowhere, when it came to the attention of the Romans, then you do have references from people like Josephus and Tacitus among others.

a last note is that this was 2000 years ago, and that specific part of the world has been fought over destroyed, burned, resettled and done time and again. the magna carta, only 800 years old has dissapeared, and it was in England. a much more peaceful place. so there is no great surprise that we dont have better records.

continued…

 

[warpspeedpetey]

To add the miricles part the bible says te God helped the Isrlites (sorry fr the wrong spelling) to get away form Egypt but performing a number of mirlicles, the most famous one when he parted the sea to let them walk through. Ok those people were i need of help and God (being all loveing helped them) fair enough. Then how comes today we have conflicts in the middle east and africa with many more people being killed and displaced than 2000 years ago. Were are God and his mirlices ? He helped Moses a few thosand years ago. . why not help now ? It seems very convient that all he miricles perfomed by Jesus and God have to of happend thosands of years ago so no eyewitness to could say it was true or not and here we are today with no miricles happeing what so ever . . ??

G-d made a Covenant with Abraham to Help the Israelites because Abraham was righteous. G-d keeps his word. thats why He helps the Jewish people. notice at that time He didnt really help any one else either. they were not righteous in G-ds eyes, they did bad things.

that is a difficult question i would also tell you that miracles still happen all the time. no, not parting the red sea, but people have diseases and injuries dissappear from time to time. very bad people, like i used to be are converted and change their lives. that is the greatest miracle of all.

say that you were a rich man, and you just threw your money around, everywhere in public, so that everyone knew you were a rich man. people would be tempted too love you not for who you were but for what you could do for them. it may be for our own good.

then again, how do we know that they wont start again? the Bible says they will and thats my favorite. we are just in between times when huge earth shattering miracles happen. but im not sure i want to see them. G-d exposing Himself so openly may be something awesomely beautiful, terrible and awful in majesty. maybe i would just be burnt to a cinder if i saw His face.

Also Christianity is one of many other religions in the world that caim to be the TRUE religion, what makes you more right/true then lets say Islam for example ? You both base your belifiefs on a Holy book, both worship one God, both have no scientifc evidence of your God . .yet you both claim to the the TURE one. It just does not add up. . how can anyone know who is right if everyone is claiming to be ?

thats actually the easiest.

the entire reason that Christianity exists, is tha Christ fulfilled dozens of Prophecies that had been made about Him by different people, in different places and time\es, separated by language, religion, cultures, and centuries.

this is mathematical proof. check out these sites

jewishvoice.org/site/PageServer?pagename=Who_is_MessianicProphecies
teachinghearts.org/dre17hdan09b.html
godonthe.net/jewish/odds.html
angelfire.com/sc3/myredeemer/Evidencep22.html

i know mathematicians convinced by this. it is so ironclad that i think one must be irrational to reject it if they really read up on it. if you read up on it i think you will be convinced fbeyond reasonable doubt as well. the math doesnt lie.

Acording to the Bible God made us in his form. There are to things i don’t get about that. First of all God is clamied to be perfect but humans are far form perfect becuase we get ill, we die, some of us have mental illnesess. . the list goes on but the point is God must not be perfect because he made us humans in his form. ?

He made us in his form, but not His kind. you can make a doll out of steel or paper, either way it is still in the form of a doll.

He supposeidly made a universe millions and millons of light years across witch likey is home to millions of other organic life forms. If he did make the universe then why is the whole bible and everything else in Christianity only focus on us humans ? Why would an all powerful God just put his full attention into one tiny speck in the sky ?

first, we dont know if there are aliens. its seems likely, but we havent seen any yet. second, who said that He only focused on us?

i fully expect the first aliens out of the landing craft to walk up and say “flippity flam beb bopety doodlewap!” and the little translator around my neck will hiss for a second, and then say “have you heard about Jesus?”

after all the first wave of people to the new world included missionaries.

Those are just some examples of why Christianity does not make scence to me.
If you want to comment/defend God then feel free to do so

Joe

well, im sure ive just generated more questions than answers. but i hope you find in here reason to join us. you could do great things for G-d, mighty deeds, greater than those tha any mere man can work alone, if you place your desires and will second too His. but most people dont, they want to do what makes them happy, what feels good, their own desires are the most important thing to them, the reason they are here doesnt matter to them. they are just sheep. dont be a sheep. live a radical life. fight the world. be a real rebel. sheep are worried about being liked, being part of the herd. when you die, you cant take anything the world has to offer with you. dont be a sheep.

 

[wanstronian]

again blanket denials. what flaws are you refering to be specific.

I can’t find the thread now, so can’t link to it. But I do take exception to your accusations of blanket denials. I have never denied anything without justification. As I allowed last time, I sometimes choose not to repeat my justification if I have provided it to you before, as is the case this time. I find your accusation extremely hypocritical, and dishonest to boot.

i already have and i just pointed it out again. i will do so yet again.

physical causation of free will is incompatible with both possible states of the universe, determinant and indeterminant. determinant, you have no choice your act is decision is predetermined from the starting state of the system. indeterminant, each of your decisions is not your choice because they are random.

what part doesnt make sense to you? defeat this argument. dont just make more blanket denials. tell me why this argument is wrong.

A predetermined choice (determinant system) does not preclude physical cause of the appearance of free will. That’s the error in your argument. It’s like saying that there’s no physical cause for an egg to break when you drop it, because it was always predestined to break. If science can describe the physical cause of an egg breaking, then theoretically it can describe the physical cause of the appearance of free will. There is certainly no basis for an assertion such as you made.

what you do is make blanket assertions and then run when i refute them. instead of defending them. that is not the same thing as not repeating yourself. i expect you to defend youre assertions just as i do.

As I always have. You do defend your assertions, but you defend them with more assertions. Maybe that counts as ‘defence’ in your book - but the fact remains that you have never provided convincing, objective, empirical evidence to support your facts - just more conjecture.

that is conclusivve evidence. there is no third state of the universe. its either determinant or indetreminant, there is no where else to go.

Never disputed.

are you talking about empirical evidence? thats the standard for the scientific method.

Yes, that’s what I’m talking about.

if you say, empiricism is true, than i shall need empirical evidence of it. and i dont think that you have conclusive evidence that empiricism is true. i think it is just your faith.

It’s not a ‘faith,’ it’s an axiomatic definition of evidence that works every time, for everybody, without exception. It’s a practical truth, and hiding behind the semantics of metaphysics does not give you licence to disregard it as the sole practical method of discovery.

that said why would i give you empirical evidence for a metaphysical argument? you didnt know that we are talking about metaphysics? how is that possible? would you ask for empirical evidence of theories involving hypercubes? like you might find one if you only looked hard enough? of course not.

I don’t really know anything about hypercubes, but a quick google suggests that they are mathematical concepts - hypothetical constructs. I’m happy to draw a parallel here - God is also a concept, also not extending beyond the hypothetical.

what is ‘unsubjective evidence’ ive never heard of that.

I constructed a word to highlight the chasm between your subjective evidence, and what is actually required. I could have used ‘objective,’ but chose not to. Sorry if it caused you problems - I assumed you’d understand what was meant.

and how is Thomism something that you already have to believe in the conclusion? and where has it been debunked

Oh come on, you’re kidding!? It’s been debunked several times on these fora, at least once by me. Famously by Bertrand Russell:
"If everything must have a cause, then god must have a cause. If there can be anything without a cause, it may just as well be the world as god, so that there cannot be any validity to that argument. It is exactly of the same nature as the Hindu’s view, that the world rested upon an elephant and the elephant rested upon a tortoise; and when they said, “How about the tortoise?” the Indian said, “Suppose we change the subject.” The argument is really no better than that.
The idea that things must have a beginning is really due to the poverty of our imagination."

Google it: “aquinas debunked” for many more examples.

more blanket assertions.

Hopefully now you realise that this is another false accusation. I’m starting to believe your debating technique follows a simple pattern:

1. Make baseless assertions
2. When challenged to provide evidence, simply repeat assertions
3. When challenged again, fabricate inaccurate observations about the challenger
4. Repeat until challenger realises he’s dealing with a closed-minded dogmatist and gives up.
5. Accuse challenger of jumping threads because he can’t defend himself.

Every conversation I’ve ever had with you, you’ve followed this pattern. Every single one.

that was said, because you claimed in post #27

obviously i wasnt. i meant exactly what i said, no ‘current’ to it.

Conflation doesn’t have to be intentional. Conflation is what you were doing, as we have seen

 

[wanstronian]

at that point you should have apprised me to why i was incorrect.

I did - I asked you to provide your evidence, you failed to provide it. Or, you provided weak evidence for just one of your claims, which I have now shown to be logically incorrect.

you dont seem to think you need to defend your statements. once said thats the end of the matter.

Again, it is extremely bad form for you to accuse me of doing something that I don’t; monumentally hypocritical of you since it is you, not me, that exhibits such behaviour.

so maybe you dont think your jumping threads, but thats the score when you dont defend your statements and just leave.

Hopefully I have outlined above why I sometimes give up. It’s not because I can’t defend myself, but because you** won’t** defend yourself adequately, rendering further discussion futile. You clearly believe you have God on your side, so no need for logic.

ill just repeat the previous part on youre standard of evidence.

i addressed the idea of empirical evidence abovge, now i see that you think emprical evidence applies to more than science.

It applies to anything for which you want your claims to be taken seriously. It is the only known objective standard of evidence.

are you talking about empirical evidence? thats the standard for the scientific method.

if you say, empiricism is true, than i shall need empirical evidence of it. and i dont think that you have conclusive evidence that empiricism is true. i think it is just your faith.

that said why would i give you empirical evidence for a metaphysical argument? you didnt know that we are talking about metaphysics? how is that possible? would you ask for empirical evidence of theories involving hypercubes? like you might find one if you only looked hard enough? of course not.

Not sure why you’ve repeated yourself, particularly as you have exhorted me in the past to keep my posts short.

 

[wanstronian]

but think about it from G-ds point of view, death is nothing to him. its not as though He is wiping them from existence, they are still “alive”, they still exist. its just a punishment. from G-ds point of view, He put them in time out, or say, grounded them from life, so to speak. so what seems so bad to us, really isnt bad at all. its fair and just. it scares us, but He knows death is not permanent.

Conjecture.

He doesnt punish you, He allows you to use your free will. you can separate yourself from G-d. this state of separation is called Hell.

Conjecture.

He wants you to freely choose to Love Him. but you have to Love Him for who He is. there are things that He Loves and things that He doesnt, just like us. just as you want a woman to love you for the kind of man you are, whether you are brave, good hearted or smart. G-d wants us to love Him for who He is. to do that we have to know and follow certain rules because that is loving him. if you did things that your girlfriend didnt like, her “rules” then you would be choosing to upset her, and before long you would be breaking up with her. its the same way with G-d. but because we have free will, G-d knows that we will often do things that displease Him. but His Love is so great that He will give you every possible chance to Love Him. unfortunately, some people put their feelings and desires before G-ds all the time, and like any relationship you do that in, you ruin it.

Conjecture.

suppose you found a book that told part of a story one day, then later somewhere else you found another book by a different author, that told another part of the same story. after a while you had several dozen books that all told parts of the same story. wouldnt you think that each book supported the other? wouldnt the story seem true? maybe you would put all those books on your shelf, and let your friends read the whole story at one time.

but one friend might say, this story isnt true because only the books on your shelf tell the story, there are no other books that do. you would know that isnt a good objection because you gathered all the books together yourself. you put all the books that corroborate the story together on the shelf.

same way with the Bible. the Bible is a compilation of books that all tell the same story of G-ds relationship with man, over a long time.

Conjecture.

now we also have to consider that Judea was a backwater to the roman empire, it was like being in kansas. do you know who the most famous person in kansas is? neither do i and i live here! Jesus wasnt a threat to the roman empire, the Jews wanted Him killed, but they didnt have the right to because that was the right of the roman empire.

Conjecture.

now when Christianity got to be a bigger force than just 12 men following 1 rabbi around out in the middle of nowhere, when it came to the attention of the Romans, then you do have references from people like Josephus and Tacitus among others.

a last note is that this was 2000 years ago, and that specific part of the world has been fought over destroyed, burned, resettled and done time and again. the magna carta, only 800 years old has dissapeared, and it was in England. a much more peaceful place. so there is no great surprise that we dont have better records.

continued…

Proving nothing.

 

[wanstronian]

G-d made a Covenant with Abraham to Help the Israelites because Abraham was righteous. G-d keeps his word. thats why He helps the Jewish people. notice at that time He didnt really help any one else either. they were not righteous in G-ds eyes, they did bad things.

Conjecture.

that is a difficult question i would also tell you that miracles still happen all the time. no, not parting the red sea, but people have diseases and injuries dissappear from time to time. very bad people, like i used to be are converted and change their lives. that is the greatest miracle of all.

Conjecture.

say that you were a rich man, and you just threw your money around, everywhere in public, so that everyone knew you were a rich man. people would be tempted too love you not for who you were but for what you could do for them. it may be for our own good.

then again, how do we know that they wont start again? the Bible says they will and thats my favorite. we are just in between times when huge earth shattering miracles happen. but im not sure i want to see them. G-d exposing Himself so openly may be something awesomely beautiful, terrible and awful in majesty. maybe i would just be burnt to a cinder if i saw His face.

Didn’t seem to hurt anybody in the bible…

thats actually the easiest.

the entire reason that Christianity exists, is tha Christ fulfilled dozens of Prophecies that had been made about Him by different people, in different places and time\es, separated by language, religion, cultures, and centuries.

this is mathematical proof. check out these sites

jewishvoice.org/site/PageServer?pagename=Who_is_MessianicProphecies
teachinghearts.org/dre17hdan09b.html
godonthe.net/jewish/odds.html
angelfire.com/sc3/myredeemer/Evidencep22.html

i know mathematicians convinced by this. it is so ironclad that i think one must be irrational to reject it if they really read up on it. if you read up on it i think you will be convinced fbeyond reasonable doubt as well. the math doesnt lie.

No, but the inferences drawn from it are not conclusive. For example, you have to believe that the scripture ‘fulfilling’ the prophecy was not written in order to fulfil the prophecy.

He made us in his form, but not His kind. you can make a doll out of steel or paper, either way it is still in the form of a doll.

Conjecture.

first, we dont know if there are aliens. its seems likely, but we havent seen any yet. second, who said that He only focused on us?

i fully expect the first aliens out of the landing craft to walk up and say “flippity flam beb bopety doodlewap!” and the little translator around my neck will hiss for a second, and then say “have you heard about Jesus?”

Presumably this is a joke…?

after all the first wave of people to the new world included missionaries.

True, but this is irrelevant. It included missionaries because the travellers were religious. Any alien race sufficiently advanced to travel to Earth is likely to have left superstition behind millenia ago. But I could be wrong.

well, im sure ive just generated more questions than answers. but i hope you find in here reason to join us. you could do great things for G-d, mighty deeds, greater than those tha any mere man can work alone, if you place your desires and will second too His. but most people dont, they want to do what makes them happy, what feels good, their own desires are the most important thing to them, the reason they are here doesnt matter to them. they are just sheep. dont be a sheep. live a radical life. fight the world. be a real rebel. sheep are worried about being liked, being part of the herd. when you die, you cant take anything the world has to offer with you. dont be a sheep.

Good advice. Don’t be a sheep. Use your brain. Think logically.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I can’t find the thread now, so can’t link to it. But I do take exception to your accusations of blanket denials. I have never denied anything without justification. As I allowed last time, I sometimes choose not to repeat my justification if I have provided it to you before, as is the case this time. I find your accusation extremely hypocritical, and dishonest to boot.

oyure still not getting it. i dont want you to repeat anything

here is how to debate

you say you believe X is true for reasons A,B,C

if i disagree

i say, i don think that X is true for A, B, C . this is a refutation

i do not want you to repeat yourself, i heard your argument the first time. i want you to defend your argument

by saying, youre refutation is false for reasons A, B, C.

this process conntinues until we enter a state of logical contradiction, that persons belief is then false on that basis.

you dont do that. you say something, then when i attack it you dont defend, this is when you make blannket denials. as you do below, repeatedly.

A predetermined choice (determinant system) does not preclude physical cause of the appearance of free will. That’s the error in your argument. It’s like saying that there’s no physical cause for an egg to break when you drop it, because it was always predestined to break. If science can describe the physical cause of an egg breaking, then theoretically it can describe the physical cause of the appearance of free will. There is certainly no basis for an assertion such as you made.

finally, you attack the premise. good. here is my refutation of your attack.

a deterministic system is one where eaqch previous state of the system determines the next state of the system. therefore there is no point at which physical causation can occur. precisely because each state was determined by the previous one.

which is why, if you know the starting state of a closed system you can predict the state at said system at any point in its trajectory.

at this point you can accept or refute. this is how we move the ball forward, looking for truth.

As I always have. You do defend your assertions, but you defend them with more assertions. Maybe that counts as ‘defence’ in your book - but the fact remains that you have never provided convincing, objective, empirical evidence to support your facts - just more conjecture.

none of them are bare assertions. you are apparently under the impression that the only evidence allowed is empirical. the empirical standard is self refuting. there is no experiment that shows empiricism to be true. the same thing goes to verifications systems based on empiricism.

why should we use a standard that is self refuting?

for metaphysics,we use logic. not the the scientific method. itself suffering from the problem of induction.

It’s not a ‘faith,’ it’s an axiomatic definition of evidence that works every time, for everybody, without exception.

that is absolutely false. let me list a few times empiricism has failed.

1. people thought the earth was flat.
2. people thought flies spontaneously developed from rotting meat
3. people thought that the stars were holes in a ‘firmament’
4. people thought that phlogiston was an accurate theory of heat
5. people thought the earth was the center of the universe.

so, empiricism does not work, every time for everybody, without exception. there are a great many examples.

now, please accept or refute the evidence offered. do not repeat yourself, or cast blanket denials.

It’s a practical truth, and hiding behind the semantics of metaphysics does not give you licence to disregard it as the sole practical method of discovery.

nor is it the sole method of discovery. mathematics makes new discoveries with the exploration of logic all the time. no empiricism needed.

furhter, empiricism is a self refuting claim. this isnt hiding behind anything, but logic. a standard of truth that cannot meet its own requirements is self refuting by definition. its a logical contradiction

I don’t really know anything about hypercubes, but a quick google suggests that they are mathematical concepts - hypothetical constructs. I’m happy to draw a parallel here -** God is also a concept, also not extending beyond the hypothetical**.

what proof do you have to support the bolded assertion?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I constructed a word to highlight the chasm between your subjective evidence, and what is actually required. I could have used ‘objective,’ but chose not to. Sorry if it caused you problems - I assumed you’d understand what was meant.

please post exactly what you are calling ‘subjective evidence’ i deny that there is any subjective evidence in my arguments.

Oh come on, you’re kidding!? It’s been debunked several times on these fora, at least once by me.

then please post evidence of this debunking. claiming to debunk something is vastly different than actually doing it.

Famously by Bertrand Russell:
"If everything must have a cause, then god must have a cause. If there can be anything without a cause, it may just as well be the world as god, so that there cannot be any validity to that argument. It is exactly of the same nature as the Hindu’s view, that the world rested upon an elephant and the elephant rested upon a tortoise; and when they said, “How about the tortoise?” the Indian said, “Suppose we change the subject.” The argument is really no better than that.
The idea that things must have a beginning is really due to the poverty of our imagination."

Google it: “aquinas debunked” for many more examples.

yes, i aware of russels attempt at a refutation. it is however easily dealt with.

G-d needs no cause. this comes from the errant idea that there can be ‘nothing’ rather than somehting. as though there is a choice between the two. there is no such choice.

‘something’ is the only possible condition because it is not possible for “no-thing” to exist. its a word for a concept that cannot exist by definition.

Hopefully now you realise that this is another false accusation. I’m starting to believe your debating technique follows a simple pattern:

1. Make baseless assertions
2. When challenged to provide evidence, simply repeat assertions
3. When challenged again, fabricate inaccurate observations about the challenger
4. Repeat until challenger realises he’s dealing with a closed-minded dogmatist and gives up.
5. Accuse challenger of jumping threads because he can’t defend himself.

Every conversation I’ve ever had with you, you’ve followed this pattern. Every single one.

and now we know the problem is that you think anything that doesnt meet the self refuting standard of empiricism, is an assertion. it is obviously not as a demonstrated above.

Conflation doesn’t have to be intentional. Conflation is what you were doing, as we have seen

i was conflating them, i was pointing out the conditions in which science cannot answer the question of free will. there is not only no current scientific understanding, ther can be no scientific understanding for the reasons i have outlined.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I did - I asked you to provide your evidence, you failed to provide it. Or, you provided weak evidence for just one of your claims, which I have now shown to be logically incorrect.

i addressed your refutation in the last post

Again, it is extremely bad form for you to accuse me of doing something that I don’t; monumentally hypocritical of you since it is you, not me, that exhibits such behaviour.Hopefully I have outlined above why I sometimes give up. It’s not because I can’t defend myself, but because you** won’t** defend yourself adequately, rendering further discussion futile. You clearly believe you have God on your side, so no need for logic

logic is the tool we are3 using, you appaqrently thought it was self refuting empiricism. give we are talking about metphhysics, where slogic is the standard, i have no idea why youre essentially trying to shove a square block through a round hole.

.It applies to anything for which you want your claims to be taken seriously. It is the only known objective standard of evidence.

um…logic? empiricism is not the only known standard. ask a mathematician.

Not sure why you’ve repeated yourself, particularly as you have exhorted me in the past to keep my posts short.

because you cast blanket denials forcing me to repeat the argument.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Conjecture.Conjecture.Conjecture.Conjecture.Conjecture.Proving nothing.

see, here is evidence of the blanket denials, that you deny making.

none of this is specific as to why its wrong, or what standard you want or anything at all. just plain old blanket assertions.

how can you deny it when it is plain to see?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Conjecture.Conjecture.

more of those blanket denials you dont make.

Didn’t seem to hurt anybody in the bible…

here is just a couple of examples.

1 Samuel 6:19
But God struck down some of the men of Beth Shemesh, putting seventy of them to death because they had looked into the ark of the Lord. The people mourned because of the heavy blow the Lord had dealt them.

2 Samuel 6:2-7 (also 1 Chr 13:7-10)

He and all his men set out from Baalah of Judah to bring up from there the ark of God, which is called by the Name, the name of the Lord Almighty, who is enthroned between the cherubim that are on the ark. They set the ark of God on a new cart and brought it from the house of Abinadab, which was on the hill. Uzzah and Ahio, sons of Abinadab, were guiding the new cart with the ark of God on it, and Ahio was walking in front of it. David and the whole house of Israel were celebrating with all their might before the Lord , with songs and with harps, lyres, tambourines, sistrums and cymbals.

When they came to the threshing floor of Nacon, Uzzah reached out and took hold of the ark of God, because the oxen stumbled. The Lord’s anger burned against Uzzah because of his irreverent act; therefore God struck him down and he died there beside the ark of God.

No, but the inferences drawn from it are not conclusive. For example, you have to believe that the scripture ‘fulfilling’ the prophecy was not written in order to fulfil the prophecy.

no inference is conclusive, thats the problem with the scientific method. its the problem of induction.

the archeological evidence proves Judaism existede prior to Christianity. if your claim that there is a conspiracy, i think you need some evidence to prove that. if you just think they were too implausible to be true, thats a logical fallacy called incredulity.

Conjecture.

blanket denial. why would you do that if you had “debunked Thomism”? you should be able to tell me why this is wrong, specifically.

Presumably this is a joke…?True, but this is irrelevant. It included missionaries because the travellers were religious. Any alien race sufficiently advanced to travel to Earth is likely to have left superstition behind millenia ago. But I could be wrong

why what makes you think scientific advance would lessen religiosity? that only happens where empiricism is taught as the only standard of evidence.

its not the same thing as using the scientific method to good effect.

Good advice. Don’t be a sheep. Use your brain. Think logically.

i do. thats why im no longer an atheist.

 

[Oreoracle]

the empirical standard is self refuting. there is no experiment that shows empiricism to be true. the same thing goes to verifications systems based on empiricism.

why should we use a standard that is self refuting?

for metaphysics,we use logic. not the the scientific method. itself suffering from the problem of induction.

Just as there is no experiment proving that empiricism is true (though I’m not entirely sure what you mean by that), there is no logical argument proving that the logical laws are true. If you disagree, please provide one.

The problem with the “you can’t prove empiricism!” argument is that it’s an underwhelming observation for those who understand how deductive systems work. We always begin with axioms, which are essentially statements that one feels cannot be reasonably rejected. From there, equivalence statements can be made, theorems can be devised from pre-existing axioms, etc. The system itself can never question the axioms, as this would be a circular effort, i.e., we would be assessing the axioms with a system dependent on those axioms.

The truth is that the same issue occurs in other systems as it does with empiricism. Logic can’t demonstrate logical laws, math can’t prove mathematical properties, etc. And yet, those systems yield undeniable utility, grant us predictive power, etc. Why harrass empiricism, but not the other systems that “suffer” from the same difficulty?

 

[Oreoracle]

logic is the tool we are3 using, you appaqrently thought it was self refuting empiricism. give we are talking about metphhysics, where slogic is the standard, i have no idea why youre essentially trying to shove a square block through a round hole.

There is a difference between a sound argument and an argument that is merely valid. A valid argument has proper form, and a sound argument is a valid argument whose premises are true. We can’t know whether some propositions are true without empiricism, so logic alone truly gets us nowhere.

Behold, a valid argument:

1. Substances above 90 degrees are frozen.
2. The contents of my body are substances above 90 degrees.
   C. Therefore, the contents of my body are frozen.

Of course, logic alone doesn’t tell us which temperatures cause various substances to freeze. Logic would deem this argument “valid” and be done with it, but it’s up to us to use the scientific method to determine that premise (1) is false. This strongly suggests that logic needs empirical observations for sound (and ultimately meaningful) argumentation. Without evidence, the application of logic may well be disguised blather.

 

[JesuisSean]

Are you searching for truths, or searching for beliefs.

One only has to practice beliefs, if you are located at a distance from the truth.

Thus, those who stick to their beliefs, stick to being at a distance from the truth.

Thus if you presented the truth to them in the here and now, they will reject it 100%, since there is no distance between truth and truth, thus no belief can be present if one connects with the truth.

This was put to the test roughly 2,000 years ago.
Those who placed truth above belief, accepted Jesus Christ.
Those who placed belief above truth, crucified Jesus Christ.

If I were Satan, I would have all people stick to their beliefs, thus the entire world could be deceived, since no one could know of the truth of such deceitfulness.

 

[wanstronian]

oyure still not getting it. i dont want you to repeat anything

You said you wanted my justification. I have already given it to you in another thread. To give it again here is to repeat it. You want a different justification each time I make a statement?

here is how to debate

you say you believe X is true for reasons A,B,C

if i disagree

i say, i don think that X is true for A, B, C . this is a refutation

Thanks for the advice, shame you don’t follow it yourself. I gave reasons why your ‘evidence’ was incorrect. I don’t need debating advice from you of all people!

i do not want you to repeat yourself, i heard your argument the first time. i want you to defend your argument

Which argument would you like me to defend? The one where I showed the flaw in your determinism/non-determinism conjecture? I’ve already done that. The ball’s in your court now.

by saying, youre refutation is false for reasons A, B, C.

Yes, as I have done.

this process conntinues until we enter a state of logical contradiction, that persons belief is then false on that basis.

As we have shown yours to be. Well actually, you may not be wrong, but if you’re right it’s by staggering coincidence, not because you have proved it. Your logic is flawed.

you dont do that. you say something, then when i attack it you dont defend, this is when you make blannket denials. as you do below, repeatedly.

Please provide an instance of where I have made an assertion that I have not defended, either in this thread or previously in a thread with you.
I do find your dishonesty and personal attacks quite out of order, and restate that your ‘debating’ approach is distasteful in the extreme.

finally, you attack the premise.

I’ve attacked it before - as I said, I thought you would remember.

good. here is my refutation of your attack.

a deterministic system is one where eaqch previous state of the system determines the next state of the system. therefore there is no point at which physical causation can occur. precisely because each state was determined by the previous one.

which is why, if you know the starting state of a closed system you can predict the state at said system at any point in its trajectory.

at this point you can accept or refute. this is how we move the ball forward, looking for truth.

Well, obviously I refute, because your logic is incorrect, as I pointed out upthread. There can still be physical causes for an effect within a determinant system. They may be predictable physical causes, but they’re still physical causes.

none of them are bare assertions. you are apparently under the impression that the only evidence allowed is empirical. the empirical standard is self refuting. there is no experiment that shows empiricism to be true. the same thing goes to verifications systems based on empiricism.

I’ve already addressed this, but it seems that I must repeat it despite your stated (hypocritical) distaste for repetition, because you’ve clearly ignored what I said before:
Empirical evidence is the only evidence that works consistently, for everybody. It’s the only evidence that can, or should, be taken into account when making emphatic claims about the nature of the universe, such as those you are making.

why should we use a standard that is self refuting?

How is it self-refuting?It’s self*-confirming*, which is not ideal, but given its consistency and reliability at producing workable and useful results, it’s by far the best we’ve got. It’s orders of magnitude better than the metaphysical ‘evidence’ you seem to think we should all accept without question.

for metaphysics,we use logic. not the the scientific method. itself suffering from the problem of induction.

Logic can’t prove anything alone. Furthermore, the logic you have presented on this forum is full of holes, as I have demonstrated many times. It’s only logical to one who already believes in the conclusion.

that is absolutely false. let me list a few times empiricism has failed.

1. people thought the earth was flat.
2. people thought flies spontaneously developed from rotting meat
3. people thought that the stars were holes in a ‘firmament’
4. people thought that phlogiston was an accurate theory of heat
5. people thought the earth was the center of the universe.

What empirical evidence was produced that supported those hypotheses? And if there was any, surely you concede that it was empirical evidence that then corrected the misapprehensions? Or did God rock up and put us straight on the world being spherical instead?

so, empiricism does not work, every time for everybody, without exception. there are a great many examples.

It does work. It’s not foolproof from the get-go, but it remains the best way of discovering the truth, as far as this is possible.

now, please accept or refute the evidence offered. do not repeat yourself, or cast blanket denials.

Well, as I have never cast blanket denials, I don’t intend to start now. I have refuted in line above.

nor is it the sole method of discovery. mathematics makes new discoveries with the exploration of logic all the time. no empiricism needed.

In the context of the claims being made by yourself and other religious apologists, empiricism is absolutely the only method of discovery.

furhter, empiricism is a self refuting claim. this isnt hiding behind anything, but logic. a standard of truth that cannot meet its own requirements is self refuting by definition. its a logical contradiction

You are repeating yourself again. Please substantiate instead.

what proof do you have to support the bolded assertion?Easy - the total lack of evidence for God.