Searching for the Truth

[wanstronian]

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

There’s no evidence at all in your arguments? The only argument you’ve actually put forward is your determinism argument, which I’ve shown to be logicall inept.

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

I did post evidence. I also provided a Google search term for abundant further refutations.

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.

Er - you do realise that your ‘refutation’ is nothing more than a further bare assertion about the nature of God?

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.

Well, I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree. A statement of “something is something” without any supporting evidence is, without question, a bare assertion. It’s a fallacious statement. If anybody made such a statement in biology, or physics, or chemistry, they’d be laughed out of the auditorium. You seem to think you’re immune from the requirements of rigour for some reason.

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.

And I have shown your reasons to be based upon assertions which you have been unable to substantiate other than by recourse to some extremely dodgy ontological arguments which I refuted with ease.

 

[wanstronian]

i addressed your refutation in the last post

Yes, this is the weak evidence to which I am referring.

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.

You can change the subject if you like. But even using logic (which proves nothing outside of mathematics), you are unable to present a compelling case.

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

As I alluded to above, we are not discussing in terms of hypothetical problems. We are discussing a real-world situation - the actual existence of a super-deity. Logic is not good enough.

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

Again with the lies. Pointing out that you have no evidence for your claim is not a ‘blanket denial.’ The burden of proof lies with he who makes the claim. Asking for proof of the claim is not a ‘blanket denial’ - it’s a reasonable response to an extraordinary claim.

 

[wanstronian]

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

I think I understand your odd use of the word ‘denial’ now.

I haven’t denied anything - I’ve just pointed out that you have provided no evidence to support your assertions. That’s what conjecture is.

For a moment you had me worried - I was starting to think I really was just denying stuff without giving a reason. Now I know I was just pointing out your fallacies. I can relax!

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

I didn’t say it was wrong. I just pointed out that you have no proof it is right.

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

What’s plain to see?

more of those blanket denials you dont make.

Indeed. You need to look up the word ‘denial’ as you clearly don’t know what it means.

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.

But weren’t they all bad guys? Are you saying you’d be “burnt to a cinder” because you’re a sinner?

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

And another cloud disperses! You don’t understand the scientific method either! You think someone does some inductive reasoning and calls it science! You’re obviously unaware of the multitude of falsification experiments, peer reviews, predictive tests (deductive, refuting your assertion that the SM is purely inductive) and so on that add weight to the resultant scientific theory.

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.

I wasn’t claiming a conspiracy - nothing so organised as that. I’m just pointing out that the documented fulfilment of prophecy compiled thousands of years ago by disparate and contradictory sources, is not a good baseline for believing that those prophecies were actually fulfilled. As I have said before, if the DSC or whatever, contain a prophecy that gives a specific (within a week or so) date in the near future, a name, and an event, then I’ll start to believe there’s something in it. That’s the only way that we can reliably document a fulfillment.

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

The same as usual. You presented conjecture as fact, without evidence. “He made us in his form…”

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

It’s speculation (you see, I admit to it when I use it). But it seems likely, given (a) that scientific advancement is built on empiricism, and (b) the overall global trend is away from religious superstition, and (c) alien life may not have evolved the ‘religion’ meme that humans have, that religion would not form part of any alien delegation to Earth.

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

Not sure what this comment relates to, sorry.

i do. thats why im no longer an atheist.

I’ve seen evidence of your ‘logic’ and I understand why you’re not an atheist. But in any event, I was directing this comment at Joe, not at you.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

the other systems that “suffer” from the same difficulty?

the problem isnt with the axioms. its because empiricism is self refuting. there is and can be no experiment that proves empiricism true.

not much of a standard of truth if it cant meet its own standard.

ergo, people who claim that nothing exists but that which can be empirically observed are making a non-sense statement, a non sequitur.

the reason i am strident on the issue is because it cuts the heart out of athesit denials based on a request for empirical evidence.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Without evidence, the application of logic may well be disguised blather.

one can deny the axioms of logic, but they are not self refuting if true. empiricism, if true, is self refuting.

im not trying to deny the utility of empiricism in the scientific method. only its validity as a universal standard of truth.

most atheists dont understand this and so they think it is reasonable to use empiricism as the standard of truth. id dare say that many atheists, wouldnt be atheists, had they been educated in these matters. its not the only cause, but it seems to be the huge chunk of the “new atheists”

 

[warpspeedpetey]

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?

yes, i want you to defend any refutation of a position you make. you do not and that is the whole problem.

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!

aparently you do. i have been trying to follow this form in every conversation with you. you will not conform to the normal course of debate. i think because you know its a losing poposition.

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.

if i am right then it is because my logic is correct. please show where i am right despite my logic?

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.

sure the sentence right above this one.

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.

of course there are physical causes for effects in general. dont dodge. there cannot be a physical effect or free will in a determinant system, or it is not ‘free’ will.

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.

as i demonstrate below. this is false

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.

because it doesnt meet its own standard of evidence.

and ‘metaphysical evidence’ is just logic. you dint have a problem with logic do you?

Logic can’t prove anything alone.

who made that claim? logic just isnt self refuting, empiricism is.

Furthermore, the logic you have presented on this forum is full of holes, as I have demonstrated many times.

another balnket assertion. ytou have never demostrated a hole in the logic. please post where this was done?

usually, when you bother to address an argument, just as above, you dont address the argument made, you address a straw man, i.e. instead of the free will i am talking about, you tries to substitute "effects’’

It’s only logical to one who already believes in the conclusion.

massiive assertion.

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?

sure people used the empirical evidence of their sesnes.centuries later observations corrected the matter.

my point being that your claim about empiricism working every time for every one is false.

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.

how do you know it is the best method for discovering truth? this is the claim that the self refutation of empiricism denies.

we are not talking about the utility of it, that i will happily agree too. but we can exclude it as the best way to find truth, because it is self refuting. logic is not. therefore logic is a superior tool for finding truth.

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

how so? if you mean the metaphyical claims, absolutely not.

You are repeating yourself again. Please substantiate instead.

ok. there is no possible experiment to prove empiricism is true. it is a metaphysical claim about the nature of reality, only observable things exist. that is not observable. self refuting.

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

i dont see anything bolded here,

what lack of evidence for G-d? we have several dozen books, some physical evidence, and a mountain of metaohysical evidence.

you keep conflating "evidence’’ with “things i can physically see”

they are not the same thing

 

[warpspeedpetey]

There’s no evidence at all in your arguments? The only argument you’ve actually put forward is your determinism argument, which I’ve shown to be logicall inept.

the argument is the evidence. did i not describe the situation and the logic. that is the evidence.

and you didnt show it to be logically inept, you set up a straw man replacing the words “free will” woth the word “effect”. you also showed that you dont do any research this is an extrememly old argument. look it up

I did post evidence. I also provided a Google search term for abundant further refutations.

i didnt see any evidence, i just saw a post about googling the debunks. what you may consider a debunk, to me as a metaphysician isnt. so you have to back up all those 'debunkings" because i dont have problem crushing them.

Er - you do realise that your ‘refutation’ is nothing more than a further bare assertion about the nature of God?

no, its about the nature of the idea of “nothing”.

Well, I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree.

this is just what said when you cant prove your point and you know it.

A statement of “something is something” without any supporting evidence is, without question, a bare assertion. It’s a fallacious statement. If anybody made such a statement in biology, or physics, or chemistry, they’d be laughed out of the auditorium.You seem to think you’re immune from the requirements of rigour for some reason.

not in the least. please show me where i made the statement that “something is something” without a basis in reason? you may not know the reason, but im sure to have one. no one is immune to rigor. you just seem to assume that rigor is soemhow empirical.

And I have shown your reasons to be based upon assertions which you have been unable to substantiate other than by recourse to some extremely dodgy ontological arguments which I refuted with ease.

these dodgy ontological arguments, are the most common ones ion the field. and your attempt at a refutation was a straw man as i pointed out before. trading “effects” with “free will”

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Yes, this is the weak evidence to which I am referring.

then you should have no problem refuting it. instead you set up a straw man, that i have mentioned before.

You can change the subject if you like. But even using logic (which proves nothing outside of mathematics), you are unable to present a compelling case

i presented the standard case.

but what do you think metaphysics is? did you not know that it is a system of logic whereby reality is analyzed on the basis of being, instead of quantity, like math uses.

you just exposed that you have no clue what metaphysics is. you havent read anything but some atheist websites opinion of Thomistic proofs. no wonder you are lost on the issue

listen up

metaphysics is the study of being. it is conducted using logic and reason just as mathematics does.

i will explain the relationship

metaphysics - the study of being. we study reality by the beings in it. using these divisions of beings. existence, property, space, time, causality, and possibility, and necessity. using the principles of logic and critical thinking.

mathematics- the study of being. mathematics studies reality by dividng beings by quantity

empirical sciences - ths study of beings with physically observable properties.

you may npot recieve an education in metaphysics. that doesnt mean that your assumptions are near true. have you ever read a metaphysical treaty that didnt have anything to do with G-d? did you even know that some metaphysicians are atheists?

i think your only exposure to metaphysics are athiestic denials of Thomism.

.As I alluded to above, we are not discussing in terms of hypothetical problems. We are discussing a real-world situation - the actual existence of a super-deity. Logic is not good enough.

we are discussing the real world situation. you simply think that real world, only applies to empiricism, obviously a false idea. you have no idea if it is true. because empiricism is self defeating.

Again with the lies. Pointing out that you have no evidence for your claim is not a ‘blanket denial.’ The burden of proof lies with he who makes the claim. Asking for proof of the claim is not a ‘blanket denial’ - it’s a reasonable response to an extraordinary claim.

yes, claiming that i am not providing evidence is a blanket denial. you dont say what part isnt evidence or why. no specificity at all.

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

…I wasn’t claiming a conspiracy - nothing so organised as that. I’m just pointing out that the documented fulfilment of prophecy compiled thousands of years ago by disparate and contradictory sources, is not a good baseline for believing that those prophecies were actually fulfilled. As I have said before, if the DSC or whatever, contain a prophecy that gives a specific (within a week or so) date in the near future, a name, and an event, then I’ll start to believe there’s something in it. That’s the only way that we can reliably document a fulfillment.

Wow. You guys sure have wasted a ton of time going round in circles. Why not just admit neither of you, or any of us, has proof of a first cause and go from there?

The ‘God’ side claims God in omnipotent and eternal; that He created the universe by speaking it into existence and that He created Man in His image, which means immortal.

The ‘no-god’ side claims, or has to claim, that rock begets rock. That the first rock came into existence of its own volition and produced more rock and more rock until we got to the billions of billions of tons of matter in the universe; that somewhere along the line these rocks took on a living form and evolved into Man, with all his physical, intellectual and emotional attributes and who is finite.

For myself, the God theory makes far more sense than the rock-begets-rock theory. There is evidence for the former and none for the latter. The Bible is evidence for the existence of God, especially in the New Testament, which is an eyewitness account of the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. It is supported by an unbroken commentary on the NT from the time of its writing to today and NT quotations consistently use the same language throughout. For the NT to be false would require the most involved conspiracy imaginable. It would have to be a lie of impossible dimensions.

Further, there are many unexplained and unexplainable events associated with the God theory which are called miracles. Many of those have been documented by independent, reliable sources. At least one has been documented by hostile sources. Many still exist today. All of them are explained away by the no-goders with no facts to support their denial.

So, while neither side can prove it’s case conclusively, the God side does have evidence where the no-god side has none. That’s why I’m a believer.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I think I understand your odd use of the word ‘denial’ now.

I haven’t denied anything - I’ve just pointed out that you have provided no evidence to support your assertions. That’s what conjecture is.

For a moment you had me worried - I was starting to think I really was just denying stuff without giving a reason. Now I know I was just pointing out your fallacies. I can relax!

you keep talking about evidence, when it is right there, you are literally refering to the evidence when you deny there is no evidence. how can you be missing it?

do you not know what evidence is? here is the definition

ev·i·dence (v-dns)
n.

1. A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment:

you have been making a blanket denial. maybe because you think evidence and “things you can see” are the same things.

I didn’t say it was wrong. I just pointed out that you have no proof it is right.

proof what is right? what do you think would constitute proof? since i can show empiricism is self refuting. do you mean deductively? i dont think so, because the scientific method is inductive, thawt would undercut your own position.

What’s plain to see?

the evidence you keep denying exists.

Indeed. You need to look up the word ‘denial’ as you clearly don’t know what it means.

But weren’t they all bad guys? Are you saying you’d be “burnt to a cinder” because you’re a sinner?

apparently.

And another cloud disperses! You don’t understand the scientific method either! You think someone does some inductive reasoning and calls it science! You’re obviously unaware of the multitude of falsification experiments, peer reviews, predictive tests (deductive, refuting your assertion that the SM is purely inductive) and so on that add weight to the resultant scientific theory.

yes i know what the scientific method is, they teach it all through high school and college. teh process of SM is supposed to be inductive. there fmay be some places where a scientist starts with a theory and not a phenomenon, but that doesnt change the way the process is supposed to and usually does work

the verification systems you refer to are the inductive problem personified on top of that the verification systems fall prey to the self refuting nature of the empiricism upon which it is based.

hence, centuries of verifications can be overturned by one contradictory experiment. see quantum mechanics.

I wasn’t claiming a conspiracy - nothing so organised as that. I’m just pointing out that the documented fulfilment of prophecy compiled thousands of years ago by disparate and contradictory sources, is not a good baseline for believing that those prophecies were actually fulfilled.

what disparate and contradictory sources? what contradictions have you found concerning the Prophecies? be specific as to what they are and how they are contradictory in regards to Prophecies fulfillment.

i bet you cant name one. much less describe how one would invalidate the argument.

As I have said before, if the DSC or whatever, contain a prophecy that gives a specific (within a week or so) date in the near future, a name, and an event, then I’ll start to believe there’s something in it. That’s the only way that we can reliably document a fulfillment.

um…what? we have dozens on top of dozens of Prophecies fullfilled, across thousands of years. the criteria you set here is nearly meaningless. fior instance. why would it have to be in the near future? how does that effect the odds? names and events arent a problem. that was specified in Prophecies.

undoubtedly there will be some excuse, i think you will do what it takes to dodge the mathematics that you cannot deny.

ive posed detailed websites on the issue to you before. you never address specifics, you make blanket denials.

here is an oppurtunity to do so

 

[warpspeedpetey]

The same as usual. You presented conjecture as fact, without evidence. “He made us in his form…”

no, you just dont know the metaphysical argument. G-d is actuality, we are composite beings, actuality and potentiality…hey, i thought you debuned all this. if that is true, shouldnt you know the arguments?

you not knowing the reason, is not the same thing as conjecture posing as fact.

if you want to do the build up of facts through Thomism, im happy to do so. start a thread, and ill post Aquinas and explain it for you.

It’s speculation (you see, I admit to it when I use it).

considering that you never realized that empiricism is a speculative metaphysical statement, id have to say this is false. you make a lot of speculative statements. every time you assume empiricism is the only standard of truth. fact is, you just didnt realize that it was speculative.

But it seems likely, given (a) that scientific advancement is built on empiricism, and (b) the overall global trend is away from religious superstition, and (c) alien life may not have evolved the ‘religion’ meme that humans have, that religion would not form part of any alien delegation to Earth.

in order to get here they would have to understand science, they would know as we do that it is a branch of metaphysics. unless they just evolved knowing the scientific method, they would have had to develop it the way we would have.

meaning they would know as well as we that, empiricism is self refuting. i dont think aliens would be too much different than us.

I’ve seen evidence of your ‘logic’ and I understand why you’re not an atheist. But in any event, I was directing this comment at Joe, not at you.

if you want to impress Joe, then dont try to snow me under wwith posts. stick to the issues and debate them until we find truth. dont jump threads. throw straw men, cast blanket denials,or dodge the Messianic Prophecies.

let us debate specifics, in short and intelligable posts.

atheism, doesnt stand a chance in the field of intellectual honesty. it only survives by subterfuge. so i would welcome the chance to expose it to someone asking the questions.

but as usual, specifics, actual argumentation, ratioanl debate wont happen, if you cant out talk me you will just jump threads, fleeing the cognitive dissonance that threans your cherished belief.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Wow. You guys sure have wasted a ton of time going round in circles.

he knows his posts show up on my screen as a solid block of text, like this. ive shown him this before. he knows i have to reconstruct his posts from another browser in order to reply to them.

Yes, this is the weak evidence to which I am referring.You can change the subject if you like. But even using logic (which proves nothing outside of mathematics), you are unable to present a compelling case.As I alluded to above, we are not discussing in terms of hypothetical problems. We are discussing a real-world situation - the actual existence of a super-deity. Logic is not good enough.Again with the lies. Pointing out that you have no evidence for your claim is not a ‘blanket denial.’ The burden of proof lies with he who makes the claim. Asking for proof of the claim is not a ‘blanket denial’ - it’s a reasonable response to an extraordinary claim.

he is simply trying to out talk me in the hope i wont waste the time. but this is what i do, so i will.

Why not just admit neither of you, or any of us, has proof of a first cause and go from there?

we havent been talking about first cause. but first cause is an absolute necessity. its easly shown from the chain of causal beings. you eventually come tto the base state of existence, what Aquinas calls the being whose essence is existence. the idea that “G-d must need a cause too” is a bit of a fairy tale based on a poor understanding of the concept of ‘nothing’

as in the question"why is there something (existence) rather than nothing?"

there is something, because there is really no other choice. there is no such thing as “nothing”. literally “no-thing” cannot exist. nothing is just a word to describe a concept that cannot exist. it would be a logical contradiction for “no-thing” to exist

ergo, G-d the being whose essence is existence. does not need a cause. there is simply no other choice.

The ‘God’ side claims God in omnipotent and eternal; that He created the universe by speaking it into existence and that He created Man in His image, which means immortal.

The ‘no-god’ side claims, or has to claim, that rock begets rock. That the first rock came into existence of its own volition and produced more rock and more rock until we got to the billions of billions of tons of matter in the universe; that somewhere along the line these rocks took on a living form and evolved into Man, with all his physical, intellectual and emotional attributes and who is finite.

For myself, the God theory makes far more sense than the rock-begets-rock theory. There is evidence for the former and none for the latter. The Bible is evidence for the existence of God, especially in the New Testament, which is an eyewitness account of the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. It is supported by an unbroken commentary on the NT from the time of its writing to today and NT quotations consistently use the same language throughout. For the NT to be false would require the most involved conspiracy imaginable. It would have to be a lie of impossible dimensions.

Further, there are many unexplained and unexplainable events associated with the God theory which are called miracles. Many of those have been documented by independent, reliable sources. At least one has been documented by hostile sources. Many still exist today. All of them are explained away by the no-goders with no facts to support their denial.

So, while neither side can prove it’s case conclusively, the God side does have evidence where the no-god side has none. That’s why I’m a believer.

this is the ‘G-ddidit’ vs. ‘itjusthappened’ argument. i always liked that one. really boils it down to brass tacks.

 

[Oreoracle]

Petey, you’re merely twisting words around. When people talk about “nothing existing” they don’t mean “nothingness existing” but rather “no things existing.” You might as well be arguing against the claim that no sock is contained in my drawer because it’s impossible for “no sock” to be contained. In fact, I don’t think we could make any propositions that involve negations with your interpretation.

Anyway, you’re missing my point about empiricism and logic. You say that the scientific method assumes itself to be a standard of truth, but this is outrageously false. We are reminded constantly in our science classes that there is no such thing as a “scientific truth.” Science merely poses a standard for useful explanations and how we can derive them.

And it’s true that we cannot derive that standard with science’s approved means of discovery (experimentation). But we can draw a parallel between science and other systems, namely logic. Logic seeks to establish a standard for validity, and gives us standards (axioms) to help us accomplish this. In fact, logic only considers arguments whose premises necessitate their conclusions to be valid. However, no logical argument can be constructed that proves logic’s axioms, just as no experiment can prove the standard of empiricism. The favored means of discovery for both systems cannot be used to assess their axioms. And so if a system’s inability to “prove” that its standards are true with its favored means of discovery makes the system self-refuting, then logic is self-refuting.

Logic suffers from exactly the same difficulty as science in that it can’t be used to prove its axioms, and yet you turn a blind eye to this “shortcoming” of logic. I think I know why you do so…

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Petey, you’re merely twisting words around. When people talk about “nothing existing” they don’t mean “nothingness existing” but rather “no things existing.” You might as well be arguing against the claim that no sock is contained in my drawer because it’s impossible for “no sock” to be contained. In fact, I don’t think we could make any propositions that involve negations with your interpretation.

the phrase “no things exist” is a logical contradiction. if there are no things, then there is no existence. existence woud be a “thing”

or in your example, your sock drawer, would still be a “thing”

Anyway, you’re missing my point about empiricism and logic. You say that the scientific method assumes itself to be a standard of truth, but this is outrageously false. We are reminded constantly in our science classes that there is no such thing as a “scientific truth.” Science merely poses a standard for useful explanations and how we can derive them.

to be clear, im not talking about scientific truth, im talking about the idea that empiricism is the only method to find truth.

And it’s true that we cannot derive that standard with science’s approved means of discovery (experimentation). But we can draw a parallel between science and other systems, namely logic. Logic seeks to establish a standard for validity, and gives us standards (axioms) to help us accomplish this. In fact, logic only considers arguments whose premises necessitate their conclusions to be valid. However, no logical argument can be constructed that proves logic’s axioms, just as no experiment can prove the standard of empiricism. The favored means of discovery for both systems cannot be used to assess their axioms. And so if a system’s inability to “prove” that its standards are true with its favored means of discovery makes the system self-refuting, then logic is self-refuting.

Logic suffers from exactly the same difficulty as science in that it can’t be used to prove its axioms, and yet you turn a blind eye to this “shortcoming” of logic. I think I know why you do so…

when empiricism claims it is the only source of knowledge, i know this claim is self refuting because it is not knowledge one can gain empirically.

therefore empiricism is false.

this situation is not true with traditional logic. the rules of logical inference are true, because they are self evident. for one instance, the law of non-contradiction. if it is false it can still be true. because a proposition cannot be both true and false at the same time.

therefore traditional logic is true.

 

[wanstronian]

then you should have no problem refuting it. instead you set up a straw man, that i have mentioned before.

i presented the standard case.

but what do you think metaphysics is? did you not know that it is a system of logic whereby reality is analyzed on the basis of being, instead of quantity, like math uses.

you just exposed that you have no clue what metaphysics is. you havent read anything but some atheist websites opinion of Thomistic proofs. no wonder you are lost on the issue

listen up

metaphysics is the study of being. it is conducted using logic and reason just as mathematics does.

i will explain the relationship

metaphysics - the study of being. we study reality by the beings in it. using these divisions of beings. existence, property, space, time, causality, and possibility, and necessity. using the principles of logic and critical thinking.

mathematics- the study of being. mathematics studies reality by dividng beings by quantity

empirical sciences - ths study of beings with physically observable properties.

you may npot recieve an education in metaphysics. that doesnt mean that your assumptions are near true. have you ever read a metaphysical treaty that didnt have anything to do with G-d? did you even know that some metaphysicians are atheists?

i think your only exposure to metaphysics are athiestic denials of Thomism.

we are discussing the real world situation. you simply think that real world, only applies to empiricism, obviously a false idea. you have no idea if it is true. because empiricism is self defeating.

yes, claiming that i am not providing evidence is a blanket denial. you dont say what part isnt evidence or why. no specificity at all.

I’m tired of your bluster. Where you have presented ‘evidence’, I have shown you why it is wrong, or severely inconclusive. You have stopped discussing the subject, and started hurling unfounded accusations. You have done the same thing in every debate we have ever had. There’s no point continuing. I won’t accept conjecture as a basis for your assertions, and you won’t accept that your conjecture isn’t hard evidence.

If you want to accuse me of jumping threads or wimping out or whatever, go right ahead. It’s standard form for you when your opponents get tired of your tautological nonsense and decide they have better things to do. Just like your other assertions though, simply stating them doesn’t make them true.

 

[wanstronian]

Wow. You guys sure have wasted a ton of time going round in circles. Why not just admit neither of you, or any of us, has proof of a first cause and go from there?

I’ve never claimed otherwise.

The ‘God’ side claims God in omnipotent and eternal; that He created the universe by speaking it into existence and that He created Man in His image, which means immortal.

The ‘no-god’ side claims, or has to claim, that rock begets rock. That the first rock came into existence of its own volition and produced more rock and more rock until we got to the billions of billions of tons of matter in the universe; that somewhere along the line these rocks took on a living form and evolved into Man, with all his physical, intellectual and emotional attributes and who is finite.

I think that this just highlights your igorance of the facts. Nowhere does the scientific view of the universe posit that a rock popped into existence. Perhaps if you took the time to understand that which you mock, you wouldn’t be so quick to mock it.

For myself, the God theory makes far more sense than the rock-begets-rock theory. There is evidence for the former and none for the latter. The Bible is evidence for the existence of God, especially in the New Testament, which is an eyewitness account of the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. It is supported by an unbroken commentary on the NT from the time of its writing to today and NT quotations consistently use the same language throughout. For the NT to be false would require the most involved conspiracy imaginable. It would have to be a lie of impossible dimensions.

If it’s an eye witness account, then so is the nursery rhyme that said the cow jumped over the moon. Both come from unknown authors. At least the nursery rhyme doesn’t contradict itself. At least the author of the nursery rhyme is not known to have lived decades after the events he claims to have witnessed. Neither of these can be said about the bible. To believe that the bible is true on the bases that you have given, shows a shocking lack of critical thinking skills.

Further, there are many unexplained and unexplainable events associated with the God theory which are called miracles. Many of those have been documented by independent, reliable sources. At least one has been documented by hostile sources. Many still exist today. All of them are explained away by the no-goders with no facts to support their denial.

Can you cite one? And you, like WSP, seem to think that the refuter should have evidence that something didn’t happen, rather than that the claimant should provide evidence that it did. So I await your conclusive evidence of a miracle.

So, while neither side can prove it’s case conclusively, the God side does have evidence where the no-god side has none. That’s why I’m a believer.

No - you’re a believer because you don’t understand a multitude of issues. Firstly, you demonstrably haven’t bothered to try and understand the scientific hypothesis for the birth of the universe - you prefer to dismiss a straw man instead. Secondly, you don’t understand what atheism is. Thirdly, you don’t understand the logical error you have made in claiming that atheists have no evidence for an absence of God. To analogise, we don’t have evidence for an absence of unicorns either. So presumably you believe in them. After all - there’s evidence - books have been written with them in! Ditto Santa, Fairies and the Roman and Greek gods, to name but a few.

I would never deny you your religion, but I’m compelled to point out that your reasoning is, frankly, awful, and would never pass scrutiny in any other field of knowledge acquisition.

 

[wanstronian]

he knows his posts show up on my screen as a solid block of text, like this. ive shown him this before. he knows i have to reconstruct his posts from another browser in order to reply to them.

You think I pad my posts just to upset you? You’re really clutching at straws here!

By the way, I don’t believe you about my posts. I don’t know how much you know about computers, but my (name removed by moderator)ut is entered into a standard form, and rendered on your PC using a standard engine. For my text to show up as a mass of text in your browser, one (or some, or all) of three things would have to be true. Either my reponses would show up as a mass of text in everybody’s browser - in which case there’s something wrong with every browser on every computer I use; or everybody’s text would show up as a block on your browser; or CAF specifically reformats my posts for some reason, but just on your computer. As nobody else has ever complained about the format of my posts and as I haven’t seen you complain about anybody else’s posts, and knowing how these things work, I can only surmise that you are fabricating this for some reason. For a start, you wouldn’t be able to know which of my comments relate to which of yours - you wouldn’t be able to respond sensibly. And while the content of your comments isn’t sensible, the juxtaposition of your comments with mine is correct.

Your claim just makes no sense I’m afraid. Ironically, if it’s true, it’s the most convincing explanation for supernatural intervention I’ve seen posted on this forum!

 

[GratefulFred]

Faith in God is a GIFT from God. We might suspect that there is a “FIRST CAUSE” of our universe that was not caused by something before it. But we know God only because HE has revealed Himself to us through His Works and His Son Jesus Christ.

God has not given the gift of faith to everyone in equal measure. **But if we can believe that there is, or may be, A GOD, we can lift our minds and hearts to Him and ask for the gift of faith and an increase in what faith we do have. **

The first step we take is to Trust that God does exist and ask for His help. We then embark on a lifelong journey of discovery. We should not be afraid to start the journey; we should not put up barriers.

Here are a few statements from Pope John Paul II’s encyclical, Veritatis Splendor, The Splendor of Truth:

We are made holy by "obedience to the truth."
Man is constantly tempted to turn his gaze away from the living and true God in order to direct it towards idols.
Man’s capacity to know the truth is also darkened, and his will to submit to it is weakened. Thus, **giving himself over to relativism and skepticism (cf. Jn 18:38), he goes off in search of an illusory freedom apart from truth itself. **
But no darkness of error or of sin can totally take away from man the light of God the Creator. In the depths of his heart there always remains a yearning for absolute truth and a thirst to attain full knowledge of it.
Christ is “the way, and the truth, and the life” (Jn 14:6). Consequently the decisive answer to every one of man’s questions, his religious and moral questions in particular, is given by Jesus Christ, or rather is Jesus Christ himself.

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

I think that this just highlights your igorance of the facts. Nowhere does the scientific view of the universe posit that a rock popped into existence.

I used ‘rock begets rock’ as metaphor because that’s where you’re going to end up with either the Big Bang theory or a static state theory. The universe was either created or it created itself. What’s your theory?

If it’s an eye witness account, then so is the nursery rhyme that said the cow jumped over the moon. Both come from unknown authors. At least the nursery rhyme doesn’t contradict itself. At least the author of the nursery rhyme is not known to have lived decades after the events he claims to have witnessed. Neither of these can be said about the bible.

Which means what? That there are contradictory passages in the Bible speaks to different recollections of the same event. If the Bible were consistent, you’d have that as a complaint and it would be more valid than your current one. It was common in biblical times for writers to affix to their writing the name of others who were the teachers of what was written. Matthew wrote his Gospel, Mark wrote his, as did Luke. It’s probable that John wrote his. Paul wrote most of his letters. The Church is well aware of who wrote what and I have no problem with it.

As to the comparison with the cow jumping over the moon. you have simply made a declaration of what you believe. Your denial does not disprove the authenticity of Scripture

To believe that the bible is true on the bases that you have given, shows a shocking lack of critical thinking skills. Can you cite one?

One what? As I said, The New Testament has a continuous and consistent line of commentary from the time it was written to today. You can’t say that about much of history that you accept without question

So I await your conclusive evidence of a miracle.

In the mid-16th Century a woman said to be the Virgin Mary appeared to a Mexican peasant in the hills near Mexico CIty. Her image was affixed to his tilma, a cape of woven grass. The tilma should have disintegrated within 15-20 years. It has lasted for over 500 years. Ammonia was spilled on it that did significant damage. It is reported to have repaired itself. There have been many skeptics who have tried to prove it’s a fake, but have failed to do so. The image bears structural similarities to the Shroud of Turin, which, I believe, is the burial cloth of Jesus Christ. The image, of a scourged and crucified man is a photographic negative on a cloth with a pattern consistent with Jesus’ time. If it’s a fake, someone in the 16th Century knew more about photography than we know today. First Century pollen has been identified in the fibers. There are First Century Roman coins on the eyes. The places on the cloth where there is supposed to be blood IS blood – Type AB. IOW, every element of the image is consistent with the biblical accounts of the crucifixion of Jesus.

In the late 70s a team of NASA scientists went to Milan to examine the shroud. Three of them were atheists. When they were done and returned to the US, they all converted to Catholicism. An account appeared in Rolling Stone Magazine about 1976-78, which I read. That doesn’t prove anything for your purposes, but it’s fact.

The final appearance of Mary at Fatima, Portugal is well documented, including newspaper accounts written by atheists and communists from Lisbon who went there to ridicule the event and had to admit they saw a miracle. It’s on the internet somewhere. I’m sure you’ll find if you want to.

No - you’re a believer because you don’t understand a multitude of issues.

Well stupid me! Why don’t you just tell me about the multitude of issues I don’t understand. I’d like to know about them.

Firstly, you demonstrably haven’t bothered to try and understand the scientific hypothesis for the birth of the universe

If you’re going to use that phrase, you better be prepared to explain ‘rock begets rock.’ ‘Birth’ implies creation. Show me whatcha got.

Secondly, you don’t understand what atheism is.

Sure I do. It’s a religion adhered to by people who have faith there is no god. Agnosticism is a state of mind which is neutral about the subject.

Thirdly, you don’t understand the logical error you have made in claiming that atheists have no evidence for an absence of God.

Sorry. I used that as a corollary to ‘evidence of God.’ I understand your point.

I would never deny you your religion, but I’m compelled to point out that your reasoning is, frankly, awful, and would never pass scrutiny in any other field of knowledge acquisition.

You have to do what you have to do, but my reasoning has passed a lot of tests too numerous to mention. I would never deny you your denial, but it appears your reasoning is little more than denial and has exactly nothing to do with knowledge acquisition.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I won’t accept conjecture as a basis for your assertions, and you won’t accept that your conjecture isn’t hard evidence.

allow me to demonstrate that your standard of ‘hard evidence’ is false.

**when empiricism claims that knowledge can only be had from the senses, i know it is a logical contradiction because that claim itself, is knowledge that cannot be had from the senses.

ergo, its false**

will you debate the matter until its decided? or jump threads to protect your cherished belief?