# Three stage argument for God



## stringmusic (Feb 15, 2012)

Interesting article...
http://www.dwillard.org/articles/artview.asp?artID=42


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 15, 2012)

reading..........


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 15, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> reading..........



Yea, sorry, it's kinda long. I will try to summarize it if I get time one day at work.


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 15, 2012)

1st 3 paragraphs: "If it has a name, it exists"

next 2 paragraphs (partial):  "For something to be, it had to be something else before"

That's as far as I got......will pick it up again later.

You just wait till Asath gets home.


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 15, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> 1st 3 paragraphs: "If it has a name, it exists"
> 
> next 2 paragraphs (partial):  "For something to be, it had to be something else before"
> 
> ...


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 15, 2012)

stringmusic said:


>



He'll talk that Willard guy into a fetal position.


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 15, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> He'll talk that Willard guy into a fetal position.



 You crack me up Ambush.

I'm sure he will have a lot to say about it, it will be interesting to hear what his thoughts are on it.


----------



## jmharris23 (Feb 15, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> He'll talk that Willard guy into a fetal position.



This is funny!! 

While we are different sides of the fence, I sure appreciate your humor and attitude.

It was long.....I read it all.....but need to read at least once more before I can comment on it at all.


----------



## Asath (Feb 15, 2012)

Hoo boy!  Okay – since y’all waited for me --  Argument FOR god?  Really?

Right out of the gate -- 

“So far as I have been able to determine, no falsehood can be deduced from the assumption of his existence . . . “  Now, if you start things off with the thought that the ‘assumption’ (not the fact) can lead to no false deductions, then you might as well toss out all of written religious thought right up front.  Correct me if I’m wrong here, but each and every religion is premised not upon the ‘assumption’ of their deity, but upon the assertion of the ‘fact’ of same.  If one needs to ‘assume’ then one does not ‘know,’  or have ‘faith,’ and is then by definition an agnostic.

Further, and in the same sentence, “ . . . and that assumption itself is not meaningless or logically inconsistent.”  Uh?  What?  Inconsistent with what?  Logic?  Well, yeah.  Logic is a process through which falsehoods are exposed, and amounts to simple math – IF A, then B = C.  If term ‘A’ is an unproven ‘assumption,’ then both ‘B’ and ‘C’ become meaningless.  Logic is a process, and does not allow room for experimental thinking.  By the rules of any ‘logic,’ an assumption is automatically false until demonstrated, and the inclusion of any ‘assumption’ in any logical process invalidates the entire line of reasoning.  

But it gets better . . . In the next paragraph the fella explains that his ‘logic’ is based entirely on speculative fantasy, in which, in another Galaxy yet to be named, there MIGHT exist a green crow.  Because of this further speculation, we are asked to then buy into a host of arguments that are similarly fantastical . . . 

Watch this dance – “A theory of being thus might serve as the general background for atheism.”  (Now, remember here, this fella is trying to justify the ‘Being’ of God.)  Then the assumption rears its ugly head – “Does Nielsen mean that God talk does refer to God or something, but we can't know what it is that it refers to? That our statements are true or false, but we just can't know which? That there is a reference for the term "God," but we somehow can't get our minds around it?” 

 Well, linguistically, there is a word – God.  And it seems to have been tossed about with no small degree of ubiquity throughout history.  But any inference that the use of the word infers and thus ratifies the existence is specious at best, as any structural linguist can attest – There is the sign, the signifier, and the signified, and they are three separate things.  Peter Pan does not exist as a factual signified simply by having been given a name (signifier).  Here the argument turns absurd, and never looks back . . . 

“If Nielsen does mean to say  . . . “   He doesn’t.

“Now we don't know what reference is . . . “   Really?  (Paging Bill Clinton . . . Depends on what you mean by ‘is’ . . . )  Of course we do.

“Certainly any post-Kripkian or post-Derridian thinker must be slow to accept empirical ostention and definite description as the only means of establishing reference.”  Now, a fella who is arguing about words must certainly know that ‘ostention’ is not a word.  He might also realize that Derrida was a deconstructionist, holding that the only solution between two opposing hierarchies is the establishment of a new one, outside of either camp.  So, DEFINITE description, both intellectually and linguistically, IS the only means of establishing reference.  One cannot give another directions by sort of implying – “Yeah, what yer lookin’ fer is over thataways a bit, right next to that other thing that is over that other way.  Ya cain’t miss it.  I know where it is . . . ”  This whole line of reasoning is patent foolishness.

Then he reduces the argument to the classic logical fallacies – the argument from consensus gentium, Ad Hominem attacks, Irrelevant appeals, the Gambler’s Fallacy, the Appeal to Consequences, the moralistic fallacy, and paragraph after paragraph of distracting with tangential issues.  

After reading the whole mess, twice, I’m still not sure that the author knows what his point was, but simply to try to refute points that he clearly didn’t understand.  

I don’t see a single argument FOR God, but it is clear that a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing . . . In the end the poor fella speaks more clearly AGAINST God,  by doing little more than forcing his assumptions into a strained, fanciful, and completely false ‘logical’ framework, and I’m sure that wasn’t what he set out to do . . .  The ‘Formal Logic’ course, at least where I went to college, was only a four credit class.  Fella wouldn’t have lost his only chance at credibility if he had attended . . .


----------



## mtnwoman (Feb 15, 2012)

jmharris23 said:


> This is funny!!
> 
> While we are different sides of the fence, I sure appreciate your humor and attitude.
> 
> It was long.....I read it all.....but need to read at least once more before I can comment on it at all.



Ambush is comical, that's why I love him...how can you not?

Jim, I'll wait for you to read it again, before I even try to read it, I have adhd and am not a good reader, my attention span is short....I'm sure nobody around here has noticed....


----------



## jmharris23 (Feb 16, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> He'll talk that Willard guy into a fetal position.





Asath said:


> Hoo boy!  Okay – since y’all waited for me --  Argument FOR god?  Really?
> 
> Right out of the gate --
> 
> ...




You were right  

I for one am glad that I am not as intelligent as Asath. I don't think I could handle the burden


----------



## fish hawk (Feb 16, 2012)

Asath said:


> Hoo boy!  Okay – since y’all waited for me --  Argument FOR god?  Really?
> 
> Right out of the gate --
> 
> ...


Horse Hockey!!!Typical atheist response....If yall dont know it yet, all atheist think there smarter than everyone else.


----------



## CAL (Feb 16, 2012)

jmharris23 said:


> You were right
> 
> I for one am glad that I am not as intelligent as Asath. I don't think I could handle the burden



I understand and agree also. I just don't think God is for everyone. I am reminded of Jesus teachings in Matthew 10; 11- 15.  When he told his disciples that when they came into a house to salute it.If the house be worthy to abide there. If it not be worthy to depart and shake the dirt off their feet!


----------



## bullethead (Feb 16, 2012)

fish hawk said:


> Horse Hockey!!!Typical atheist response....If yall dont know it yet, all atheist think there smarter than everyone else.



It is a "typical atheist response" because it shredded the "typical pro-God assumption". 
Nobody thinks they are smarter than anyone, the posts decide that. Your in depth intellectual post quoted post above isn't making a case for valedictorian though.


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 16, 2012)

Asath said:


> Hoo boy!  Okay – since y’all waited for me --  Argument FOR god?  Really?
> 
> Right out of the gate --
> 
> ...



whew!! After all that you didn't debunk one of the three stages of argument that Willard has.

Give us an example of something in the physical world that explains its own existence. Then you might have a strong rebuttle.


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 16, 2012)

Asath said:


> I don’t see a single argument FOR God, but it is clear that a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing . . . In the end the poor fella speaks more clearly AGAINST God,  by doing little more than forcing his assumptions into a strained, fanciful, and completely false ‘logical’ framework, and I’m sure that wasn’t what he set out to do . . .  *The ‘Formal Logic’ course, at least where I went to college, was only a four credit class.  Fella wouldn’t have lost his only chance at credibility if he had attended* . . .



No, he teaches the class, for the last 47 years. He's been teaching probably longer than you've been alive.


DALLAS WILLARD is a Professor in the School of Philosophy at the University of Southern California in Los Angeles. He has taught at USC since 1965, where he was Director of the School of Philosophy from 1982-1985. He has also taught at the University of Wisconsin (Madison, 1960-1965), and has held visiting appointments at UCLA (1969) and the University of Colorado (1984).


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 16, 2012)

jmharris23 said:


> You were right
> 
> I for one am glad that I am not as intelligent as Asath. I don't think I could handle the burden



I don't think I am either but I really see the benefits of approaching life from an informed and intelligent position.  It even helps in picking a tree stand location.  

A teacher once told me that our mind is like a muscle, if you keep exercising it, it will get stronger.  



fish hawk said:


> Horse Hockey!!!Typical atheist response....If yall dont know it yet, all atheist think there smarter than everyone else.



I'm speechless......

Are you purposely trying to be dismissed from the conversation?




CAL said:


> I understand and agree also. I just don't think God is for everyone. I am reminded of Jesus teachings in Matthew 10; 11- 15.  When he told his disciples that when they came into a house to salute it.If the house be worthy to abide there. If it not be worthy to depart and shake the dirt off their feet!



It might be that logic might not be for everyone either, but not for someone like you.  You are fully capable of using your intellect.



stringmusic said:


> whew!! After all that you didn't debunk one of the three stages of argument that Willard has.
> 
> Give us an example of something in the physical world that explains its own existence. Then you might have a strong rebuttle.



Please pull the section where Willard makes this assertion so that we can examine it together.


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 16, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> Please pull the section where Willard makes this assertion so that we can examine it together.



     "The argument at stage one proceeds from the nature and the existence of the physical. Confusions, quibbles and philosophical exercises—pointless and otherwise—aside, it is true that there is a physical world, and we do know that this is true. Further—although the nature of that world may be, ultimately, a profound mystery, or turn out to have some deep kinship with what we call the mental or spiritual—there are some things about its general character which we also know to be true. *One of these is as follows: However concrete physical reality is sectioned up, the result will be a state of affairs which owes its being to something other than itself.*

*This, I submit, is something which we know to be true of the general character of things in the physical world, and of course anyone should feel free to submit a case of a physical state of which this proposition is not true.* Now it is, certainly, an extremely complex proposition, and, if we begin to take it apart, we will surely be led to many things we do not know and possibly do not even understand. But it has that in common with nearly all of the truths which we know best, both in ordinary life and in science. One of the things which I hope might be clear at this point in humanity's intellectual development is that degree of simplicity or complexity in an object has no automatic significance either for being or for knowledge. It should be equally clear that inability to say how we know something does not imply that we do not know it—although it is always appropriate to raise the question of the "how" whenever someone claims to know something, and some appropriate kind of explanation is usually required."

In less intelligent terms....

He basically gives any reader, scientist or not, the proposition to give any evidence to something that explains it's own existence.

Since we have nothing that can, we must assume a first uncaused cause to the physical world, which by definition can not be physical. Doesn't mean there is a God, or even the God of the Bible, I take it to mean there is "something" non-physical that created the physical.

The two stages after help some determine that, that "something", has a high probability to be God.


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 16, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> "The argument at stage one proceeds from the nature and the existence of the physical. Confusions, quibbles and philosophical exercises—pointless and otherwise—aside, it is true that there is a physical world, and we do know that this is true. Further—although the nature of that world may be, ultimately, a profound mystery, or turn out to have some deep kinship with what we call the mental or spiritual—there are some things about its general character which we also know to be true. *One of these is as follows: However concrete physical reality is sectioned up, the result will be a state of affairs which owes its being to something other than itself.*
> 
> *This, I submit, is something which we know to be true of the general character of things in the physical world, and of course anyone should feel free to submit a case of a physical state of which this proposition is not true.* Now it is, certainly, an extremely complex proposition, and, if we begin to take it apart, we will surely be led to many things we do not know and possibly do not even understand. But it has that in common with nearly all of the truths which we know best, both in ordinary life and in science. One of the things which I hope might be clear at this point in humanity's intellectual development is that degree of simplicity or complexity in an object has no automatic significance either for being or for knowledge. It should be equally clear that inability to say how we know something does not imply that we do not know it—although it is always appropriate to raise the question of the "how" whenever someone claims to know something, and some appropriate kind of explanation is usually required."
> 
> ...




Firstly, the absolute ONLY thing we can say for sure is that "we are".  It's plainly evident to everyone.
_
 "it is true that there is a physical world, and we do know that this is true."_

This is a HUGE leap:
_
"One of these is as follows: However concrete physical reality is sectioned up, the result will be a state of affairs which owes its being to something other than itself."_

How about demonstrate something that has been "POOFED" into existence.

_"submit a case of a physical state of which this proposition is not true."_

How about: "Things have always been".  It's an assertion that is as unfounded as an eternal Prime Mover but logically on par (that being that it is "illogical")

_" Now it is, certainly, an extremely complex proposition, and, if we begin to take it apart, we will surely be led to many things we do not know and possibly do not even understand. But it has that in common with nearly all of the truths which we know best, both in ordinary life and in science."_

It is absolutely true that there are things we do not understand.

_"that degree of simplicity or complexity in an object has no automatic significance either for being or for knowledge."_

God included.

_" It should be equally clear that inability to say how we know something does not imply that we do not know it—although it is always appropriate to raise the question of the "how" whenever someone claims to know something, and some appropriate kind of explanation is usually required.""_

I'm afraid "It pricked my heart" or " I heard the Holy Spirit speak to me" doesn't pass the test Willard himself sets up.  I mean, really.  That's where this will NECESSARILY end up.  If that's criteria you want to use to define your reality then fine, just don't try to call it logical.


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 16, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> Firstly, the absolute ONLY thing we can say for sure is that "we are".  It's plainly evident to everyone.
> _
> "it is true that there is a physical world, and we do know that this is true."_
> 
> ...



Read below, it is his explaination of why there is a first cause. Your assertion of "things have always been" also goes against what most in the scientific community believe to be true.

Now any general understanding of the dependencies of physical states would require something like Aristotle's well-known four "causes." Restricting ourselves to the temporal order, however, we find, among other things, that every physical state, no matter how inclusive, has a necessary condition in some specific type of state which immediately precedes it in time and is fully existent prior to the emergence of the state which it conditions. This means that for any given state, e.g. Voyager II being past Triton, all of the necessary conditions of that state must be over and done with at that state, or at the event of which the state is the ontic residue. The series of "efficient" causes, to speak with Aristotle, is completed for any given event or state that obtains. At the state in question, we are not waiting for any of these causes to happen, to come into being.

Moreover, this completed set of causes is highly structured in time and in ontic dependence, through relationships which are irreflexive, asymmetric and transitive. Thus, no physical state is temporally or ontically prior to itself, and if one, a, is prior to another, b, b is not prior to a. Further, if a is prior to b and b to c, then a is prior to c. This rigorous structure of the past is eternally fixed and specifies a framework within which every event of coming into existence and ceasing to exist finds it place. Most importantly for present interests, since the series of causes for any given state is completed, it not only exhibits a rigorous structure as indicated, but that structure also has a first term. That is, there is in it at least one "cause," one state of being, which does not derive its existence from something else. It is self-existent.

If this were not so, Voyager's passing Triton, or any other physical event or state, could not be realized, since that would require the actual completion of an infinite, i.e. incompletable, series of events. In simplest terms, its causes would never "get to" it. (As in a line of dominoes, if there is an infinite number of dominoes that must fall before dominoe x is struck, it will never be struck. The line of fallings will never get to it.) Since Voyager II is past Triton, *there is a state of being upon which that state depends but which itself depends on nothing prior to it*. Thus, concrete physical reality implicates a being radically different from itself: a being which, unlike any physical state, is self-existent.

Your not going to argue with science.... are you?


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 16, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> How about demonstrate something that has been "POOFED" into existence.


I can't, you can't, nobody can, that is kinda the point of the first stage. At some point in time the physical world came from "something" that is self existent. The physical cannot come from nothing, and it cannot have always been.


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 16, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> Read below, it is his explaination of why there is a first cause. Your assertion of "things have always been" also goes against what most in the scientific community believe to be true.
> 
> Now any general understanding of the dependencies of physical states would require something like Aristotle's well-known four "causes." Restricting ourselves to the temporal order, however, we find, among other things, that every physical state, no matter how inclusive, has a necessary condition in some specific type of state which immediately precedes it in time and is fully existent prior to the emergence of the state which it conditions. This means that for any given state, e.g. Voyager II being past Triton, all of the necessary conditions of that state must be over and done with at that state, or at the event of which the state is the ontic residue. The series of "efficient" causes, to speak with Aristotle, is completed for any given event or state that obtains. At the state in question, we are not waiting for any of these causes to happen, to come into being.
> 
> ...



First a criticism of his style:  That could really have been said more succinctly.

To the content:  How does his assertion apply to God?

_ "In simplest terms, its causes would never "get to" it. (As in a line of dominoes, if there is an infinite number of dominoes that must fall before dominoe x is struck, it will never be struck. The line of fallings will never get to it.) Since Voyager II is past Triton, *there is a state of being upon which that state depends but which itself depends on nothing prior to it*. Thus, concrete physical reality implicates a being radically different from itself: a being which, unlike any physical state, is self-existent."_

Infinite regression STILL does not EVER deal with where God came from.


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 16, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> First a criticism of his style:  That could really have been said more succinctly.
> 
> To the content:  How does his assertion apply to God?
> 
> ...


First, it does however debunk your assertion that "everything has always been", will you give it that?

Secondly, God is not physical, this is an explanation of and about the physical. Your question is a logical fallacy. God did not "come" from anywhere.

      "A more serious and perhaps more "common sense" objection to my position, but one that is, I think, answerable, is contained in the child's question: "Mommy, where did God come from?" (He's just been told that God made trees and clouds, you know.) In our terminology: "Where did this self-existent being come from?" And the answer is that He (She, It) didn't come from anything because He didn't come at all.

One will have trouble with that answer only if they have already assimilated existence to physical existence. Then and only then does the perfectly general question, "Why is there something rather than nothing?" make sense. Without that assimilation the answer is: "Why shouldn't there be?" And it turns out there is no good reason to suppose that everything that exists resembles physical existents in coming to be "from" something other than themselves. It should be pointed out that such a supposition, in any case, directly begs the question of God's existence."


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 16, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> First, it does however debunk your assertion that "everything has always been", will you give it that?



I will concede that in order for his "logic" to work that he assumes a God.



stringmusic said:


> Secondly, God is not physical, this is an explanation of and about the physical. Your question is a logical fallacy. God did not "come" from anywhere.
> 
> "A more serious and perhaps more "common sense" objection to my position, but one that is, I think, answerable, is contained in the child's question: "Mommy, where did God come from?" (He's just been told that God made trees and clouds, you know.) In our terminology: "Where did this self-existent being come from?" And the answer is that He (She, It) didn't come from anything because He didn't come at all.
> 
> One will have trouble with that answer only if they have already assimilated existence to physical existence. Then and only then does the perfectly general question, "Why is there something rather than nothing?" make sense. Without that assimilation the answer is: "Why shouldn't there be?" And it turns out there is no good reason to suppose that everything that exists resembles physical existents in coming to be "from" something other than themselves. It should be pointed out that such a supposition, in any case, directly begs the question of God's existence."



My point exactly.  He is using examples of physical phenomena: "Triton had to pass such and such before it could get to such and such..."  and then midstream asserts that a force that is not subject to said phenomena is responsible.  I'm no genius but I'm pretty sure that that's a 15 yard penalty.


----------



## JB0704 (Feb 16, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> My point exactly.  He is using examples of physical phenomena: "Triton had to pass such and such before it could get to such and such..."  and then midstream asserts that a force that is not subject to said phenomena is responsible.  I'm no genius but I'm pretty sure that that's a 15 yard penalty.



I think the point is that to get from non-existent to existent there must be something pre-existent.  What we have and what we are is not pre-existent.  We are here, and we came from there.


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 16, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> I think the point is that to get from non-existent to existent there must be something pre-existent.  What we have and what we are is not pre-existent.  We are here, and we came from there.



If you can wrap your head around the notion of the infinite or the eternal that you can apply it to many things be it matter/energy or God or faerie dust.


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 16, 2012)

Since all of this is really "imaginary numbers", what I guess I do is I run "simulations" in my mind assuming a conscious Creator and assuming none.  I factor in how one position or the other jives with what I know.  How each factor affects how I view reality.  I observe how others are affected by either position. And I project how the course of my life and the state of my own conscience might be affected by either position.

So far, I'm wholly unimpressed with the deist position.


----------



## JB0704 (Feb 16, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> Since all of this is really "imaginary numbers", what I guess I do is I run "simulations" in my mind assuming a conscious Creator and assuming none.  I factor in how one position or the other jives with what I know.  How each factor affects how I view reality.  I observe how others are affected by either position. And I project how the course of my life and the state of my own conscience might be affected by either position.
> 
> So far, I'm wholly unimpressed with the deist position.



Do you see any change in the state of your own conscience or life under the premise of a God existing?  It does for me.  Not so much from a morality perspective, but from a "where do I fit in the puzzle" perspective.


----------



## JB0704 (Feb 16, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> If you can wrap your head around the notion of the infinite or the eternal that you can apply it to many things be it matter/energy or God or faerie dust.



I can't, really.  I am only addressing the realities of what we know.  We are here, and came from there. There came from something before it, and so on.  Existence is not eternal in my perspective.  Which leads me to believe the catalyst for my existence is beyond the natural because everything in nature operates according to natural laws, complete with beginnings and endings.

Outside of that, yes, we can plug in fairy dust, gremlins, an aliens science experiment or whatever.  I don't, but understand that point.


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 16, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> I will concede that in order for his "logic" to work that he assumes a God.
> 
> 
> 
> My point exactly.  He is using examples of physical phenomena: "Triton had to pass such and such before it could get to such and such..."  and then midstream asserts that a force that is not subject to said phenomena is responsible.  I'm no genius but I'm pretty sure that that's a 15 yard penalty.



You'll have to point out to me where this happens, I can't find it.

What he does is use a physical explanation, i.e. triton and voyager, to explain how a physical entity cannot be infinite. That since a physical entity cannot be infinite, and cannot explain its own existance, there has to be "something" that created the physical. He asserts no God, or magic, or anything else in the first stage, only that "something". 

You, and I, must take the article in whole to get to assertion of an intelligent "something" in the end, which can be asserted as being God, and not be illogical.

You keep using only the first stage of the argument to assert that it his logic does not lead one to God, and you're exaclty right, it doesn't, but that not what the first stage of the argument is for.


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 16, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> I will concede that in order for his "logic" to work that he assumes a God.



Are you saying that his logic is not correct, or he has used some false logic? Can you point me to where his logic fails to meet the criteria for the definition of logic?


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 16, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> If you can wrap your head around the notion of the infinite or the eternal that you can apply it to many things be it matter/energy or God or faerie dust.



No you can't apply the infinite to matter or energy, we already went over this.


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 16, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> Do you see any change in the state of your own conscience or life under the premise of a God existing?  It does for me.  Not so much from a morality perspective, but from a "where do I fit in the puzzle" perspective.




Yes.  Some scenarios it's good some bad.  So far, for the most part, bad.  When I assume a God then the problem becomes "what kind?"  Strings kind?  No way.  

No way.


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 16, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> No you can't apply the infinite to matter or energy, we already went over this.



Can I apply it to an imaginary friend?


----------



## bullethead (Feb 16, 2012)

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/ipnegep.html


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 16, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> Can I apply it to an imaginary friend?



Yes, you can logically apply whatever you want that "something" to be in stage one.


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 16, 2012)

bullethead said:


> http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/ipnegep.html



That doesn't really have anything to do with the article, it's not even a rebuttle to what the article is about. Do you have anything you want to say to try and refute Mr. Willards argument?


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 16, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> That doesn't really have anything to do with the article, it's not even a rebuttle to what the article is about. Do you have anything you want to say to try and refute Mr. Willards argument?



Agreed. 

Bullet,

Start a new thread and we can talk about the articles side by side.


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 16, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> Agreed.
> 
> Bullet,
> 
> Start a new thread and we can talk about the articles side by side.



Your not going to leave me hangin' on post #30 and #31 are ya?


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 16, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> Your not going to leave me hangin' on post #30 and #31 are ya?



hold on


----------



## Asath (Feb 16, 2012)

“Give us an example of something in the physical world that explains its own existence.”   Okay.  Stringmusic.  

Is that one sufficient?  You are in the physical world, or at least we hope so, and you exist.  Taken together, that is pretty much all of the self-explanation anyone is ever going to be able to provide themselves.  You exist.  Why, exactly, does this pose a philosophical problem?  Does the fact of your existence require an explanation, in order for your physical existence to move forward?  Fish don’t seem to be bothered by such worries, nor do trees.

But, just the same, if explaining your own existence to yourself seems to be a front-and-center concern, trumping all of the other myriad obstacles to your ongoing survival, then it seems like a pretty safe bet that looking backwards --  to an age where even the sun and moon were unsolvable mysteries surrounded by speculation and mysticism – and seeking that answer in the ancient writings of that time is going to be a surely frustrating endeavor.  You might as well put forth the contention that Anaximander invented quantum physics.  

This does not argue against the existence of the ‘spiritual’ as a source of psychological refuge and comfort, nor does it argue against the abstract of individual thought concerning the many, many things that remain unknown – there will always be unknowns, and each and every person must formulate their own educations and their own ways of dealing with that truth – but it seems purely absurd to put forward a proposition, by means of a computer, that this ancient set of writings anticipated, enabled, and indeed created that computer.  

Things have changed over the last two thousand-odd years.  EVERYTHING has changed.  Not always for the better.  But there seems to be no sense that can be made by tossing all of progress back into an ancient framework, and trying to claim that THOSE fellas had it all figured out.  They didn’t.  Nor do we.  Modern science, and modern thought isn’t 100% right.  We know that, and so we keep pushing to advance and refine and try to HELP civilization move forward.  I can hardly see the scientific, heretical villain involved in finding cures to diseases that wiped out hundreds of thousands in ‘Biblical’ times.  Finding a way to purify the water that was ‘God Given,’ so that the water itself stopped killing people, or even something as simple as a mousetrap turns out not to be directed, ‘inspired,’ or in any way anticipated by the ancient writings.  They didn’t know that vermin spread diseases, killing off quite a lot of this proposed ‘Creation.’  

So one is forced to ask – just which of the various forces, disciplines, avocations, and pursuits of existing humans (such as the aforementioned Stringmusic), have added to the value and longevity and quality of the lives of ALL of the humans that ALSO exist (without an explanation that is  satisfactory to Stringmusic)?

And one is forced to contrast that answer against the various forces, disciplines, avocations, and pursuits that have conspired throughout history to impede that progress for the sole reason that they already HAVE such an explanation, and already HAVE all those answers, published in a Book from a few thousand years ago.  We needed to do nothing more than stop right there, and just listen to then.

So which position makes more sense?  That we need to look back, to ancient writing, and there we will find all the answers we need, or that we need to keep moving forward, and keep looking for answers that actually might make sense, and continue to improve the (unexplained as yet) fact that we do actually exist?


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 17, 2012)

Asath said:


> “Give us an example of something in the physical world that explains its own existence.”   Okay.  Stringmusic.
> 
> Is that one sufficient?  You are in the physical world, or at least we hope so, and you exist.  Taken together, that is pretty much all of the self-explanation anyone is ever going to be able to provide themselves.  You exist.  Why, exactly, does this pose a philosophical problem?  Does the fact of your existence require an explanation, in order for your physical existence to move forward?  Fish don’t seem to be bothered by such worries, nor do trees.


No that is not suficient, telling me that I exist is not explaining my existance at all. You do not have an example because an example does not exist.

 Telling us that that there is no way of knowing existence for anything physical is also not an answer to the question. You don't want to concede the point so badly that you will beat around the bush of the question with fish and trees not asking philosophical questions, I'll let you simply figure our for yourself why they don't.

 The question of the origin of anything and most importantly ourselfs is a philosophical question dating back almost to the beginning of time. If you would like to dismiss it that is fine by me.



> But, just the same, if explaining your own existence to yourself seems to be a front-and-center concern, trumping all of the other myriad obstacles to your ongoing survival, then it seems like a pretty safe bet that looking backwards --  to an age where even the sun and moon were unsolvable mysteries surrounded by speculation and mysticism – and seeking that answer in the ancient writings of that time is going to be a surely frustrating endeavor.  You might as well put forth the contention that Anaximander invented quantum physics.


This has nothing to do with my survival.

Also, this has nothing to do with the bible. And I don't know who Anaximander is.  



> This does not argue against the existence of the ‘spiritual’ as a source of psychological refuge and comfort, nor does it argue against the abstract of individual thought concerning the many, many things that remain unknown – there will always be unknowns, and each and every person must formulate their own educations and their own ways of dealing with that truth – but it seems purely absurd to put forward a proposition, by means of a computer, that this ancient set of writings anticipated, enabled, and indeed created that computer.


And that is exactly what Mr. Willard is doing, formulating educations, with a very logical concern. One that has yet to be even close being debunked in this thread, at least Ambush is having a discussion about the article and not about the bible.

Oh, and the bible didn't enable, or create a computer, I would also go as far as saying that it didn't anticipate the arrival of the computer, that is not what it is meant for in the least.   



> Things have changed over the last two thousand-odd years.  EVERYTHING has changed.  Not always for the better.  But there seems to be no sense that can be made by tossing all of progress back into an ancient framework, and trying to claim that THOSE fellas had it all figured out.  They didn’t.  Nor do we.  Modern science, and modern thought isn’t 100% right.  We know that, and so we keep pushing to advance and refine and try to HELP civilization move forward.  I can hardly see the scientific, heretical villain involved in finding cures to diseases that wiped out hundreds of thousands in ‘Biblical’ times.  Finding a way to purify the water that was ‘God Given,’ so that the water itself stopped killing people, or even something as simple as a mousetrap turns out not to be directed, ‘inspired,’ or in any way anticipated by the ancient writings.  They didn’t know that vermin spread diseases, killing off quite a lot of this proposed ‘Creation.’


Don't really have much to say here except the prophets of the bible didn't have it "all figured out" and never claimed to. What they did have figured out was a way to the Father in heaven through Jesus Christ.  



> So one is forced to ask – just which of the various forces, disciplines, avocations, and pursuits of existing humans (such as the aforementioned Stringmusic), have added to the value and longevity and quality of the lives of ALL of the humans that ALSO exist (without an explanation that is  satisfactory to Stringmusic)?


I will not go through the good that various religious entities have done in this world that have help millions with quality of life, even though I don't agree with all of their individual fundamental doctrines. As far as longevity goes, that is not really the point of any religious entity, to make life here longer.



> And one is forced to contrast that answer against the various forces, disciplines, avocations, and pursuits that have conspired throughout history to impede that progress for the sole reason that they already HAVE such an explanation, and already HAVE all those answers, published in a Book from a few thousand years ago.  We needed to do nothing more than stop right there, and just listen to then.


Yes, religious entities have done bad things.

How about taking a crack at the article at hand.


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 17, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> No that is not suficient, telling my that I exist is not explaining my existance at all. You do not have an example because an example does not exist.
> 
> Telling us that that there is no way of knowing existence for anything physical is also not an answer to the question. You don't want to concede the point so badly that you will beat around the bush of the question with fish and trees not asking philosophical questions, I'll let you simply figure our for yourself why they don't.
> 
> ...



That is an incredibly odd thing to assert.  Can you see it for what it is?  Step back for a second and look at it objectively and critically.

1.) "The Prophets"--  Come, on. Why not The Wizards or The Soothsayers or The Shaman?  Doesn't that seem in the least bit to you like fiction? 

2.) "The Father"--  If I hadn't been indoctrinated with the idea since childhood in the Pledge of Allegiance and on money........ it really is a weird notion.  It doesn't make sense form an objective standpoint.

3.)"Heaven"--  Really?

4.)"Through Jesus Christ"--  What you're talking about here is "Abra Cadabra".  Resurrection, Trans-Substantiation, Miracles...  I can't see myself buying that stuff.  It's just............ridiculous.

Back to the article:

I'm reading it slowly and carefully trying hard to follow his logic.  But I have to say that on the face of it, it's getting kind of convoluted.  I'm getting a sense that his "cart" is getting in front of his "horse".  I will compile specific examples soon.


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 17, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> That is an incredibly odd thing to assert.  Can you see it for what it is?  Step back for a second and look at it objectively and critically.
> 
> 1.) "The Prophets"--  Come, on. Why not The Wizards or The Soothsayers or The Shaman?  Doesn't that seem in the least bit to you like fiction?
> 
> ...



Those are all implications of my belief system. We have went over them before I'm sure, and I would love to go over them again, just in a different thread. I'm trying to keep this thread on topic as best as possible, and it seems that you're the only one that wants to have a conversation about it, I'm not really sure why nobody else wants to participate. Thanks!



> Back to the article:
> 
> I'm reading it slowly and carefully trying hard to follow his logic.  But I have to say that on the face of it, it's getting kind of convoluted.  I'm getting a sense that his "cart" is getting in front of his "horse".  I will compile specific examples soon.


----------



## WTM45 (Feb 17, 2012)

Someone thought up a unicorn, named it, described it in entirety and commenced to tell everyone about it.  I heard about it repeatedly.
There just HAS to be one out there, saddled up and ready for me to take a ride into the clouds!
I can believe that and trust it is 100% true with my faith.  It is logical.  Only those who are "too smart" can not understand my belief and desire to tell others about what I know about unicorns!


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 17, 2012)

WTM45 said:


> Someone thought up a unicorn, named it, described it in entirety and commenced to tell everyone about it.  I heard about it repeatedly.
> There just HAS to be one out there, saddled up and ready for me to take a ride into the clouds!
> I can believe that and trust it is 100% true with my faith.  It is logical.  Only those who are "too smart" can not understand my belief and desire to tell others about what I know about unicorns!


I know you don't post in here much, but from what I remember, most of the time your post are insightful and interesting, this is not one of those times.

Did you read any of the article?


----------



## WTM45 (Feb 17, 2012)

Of course.  I had read his work, including this one, before you brought it to the forum.  And, it is a good thing that you did, as it can be a great topic for discussion.

When the very idea of accepting all assumptions as the basis for one's logical thought is presented, shaping is the next tactic used.  Make things fit.
My post above is exactly that.

I'm not concerned in the least if you think any post by me is "insightful or interesting."  Been here long enough to say what I feel like saying, when I feel like saying it, within the rules of the forums without fear of losing any friends.  Or gaining any.
Patronizing fails.


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 17, 2012)

WTM45 said:


> Of course.  I had read his work, including this one, before you brought it to the forum.  And, it is a good thing that you did, as it can be a great topic for discussion.
> 
> When the very idea of accepting all assumptions as the basis for one's logical thought is presented, shaping is the next tactic used.  Make things fit.
> My post above is exactly that.


What about the third stage?

Your post above seems to give all the qualities of God and call it a unicorn. Is that pretty much what you did?



> I'm not concerned in the least if you think any post by me is "insightful or interesting."  Been here long enough to say what I feel like saying, when I feel like saying it, within the rules of the forums without fear of losing any friends.  Or gaining any.
> Patronizing fails.


Somebody got their cherios peed in this morning.


----------



## JB0704 (Feb 17, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> Somebody got their cherios peed in this morning.





I was scratching my head over that one too......


----------



## WTM45 (Feb 17, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> What about the third stage?
> 
> 
> Somebody got their cherios peed in this morning.



No, I simply refuse to be belittled.  I make efforts not to do that to others, and will not let it slide when aimed at me.

About the "third stage?"  Anything can fit there, not just the God of Abraham.  So, there is no substantial reason to follow the assumptions presented in the first two stages.
For all we know, there might be a mothership monitoring us right now...  "Third Stage" is a classic Boston album!


----------



## WTM45 (Feb 17, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> I know you don't post in here much, but from what I remember, most of the time your post are insightful and interesting, this is not one of those times.



See, THAT'S a condescending post.  It's all too common in this forum.  THAT'S why some of us who USED to post in the SDDS forums quite often don't anymore.



I'll go fix another bowl of cereal, and crawl back into the hole I occupy.  Take it easy.


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 17, 2012)

WTM45 said:


> See, THAT'S a condescending post.  It's all too common in this forum.  THAT'S why some of us who USED to post in the SDDS forums quite often don't anymore.
> 
> 
> 
> You may zip up your fly now.  I'll go fix another bowl of cereal, and crawl back into the hole I occupy.  Take it easy.



To say that your posts are normally of higher quality was not meant to be condescending. I'm sorry that you took it that way, I meant no harm.


----------



## WTM45 (Feb 17, 2012)

It's quite easy to move to the defensive when the frequency of one's participation and the opinionated analysis of that past participation is questioned as being relevant or valuable. 

It's all good.  I won't lose any sleep, nor should you.  We continue.


----------



## Asath (Feb 19, 2012)

“No that is not suficient, telling me that I exist is not explaining my existance at all. You do not have an example because an example does not exist.”

Um?  First, if an example does not exist, then how is it that religions claim to provide them?  That seems a little self-negating, to argue both for and against the same proposition that you, yourself, put forward.  And if the simple fact of your own actual existence is not a sufficient explanation for the fact that you do exist, then why ask us?

 You’ve already provided your own answer, for yourself – a bunch of unknown fellas living in an isolated desert a few thousand years ago wrote some stories down, and a few hundred years later a few more fellas picked out some of these stories, compiled them into a Book, added, deleted, rewrote, and refined those stories for another thousand and a half years, then some German fella decided that wasn’t true, wrote his own version of those stories, and then had THAT version ratified by no less an authority than King James.   And THAT is all the ‘Truth’ you, personally need in order  to consider this to be credible and wholly sufficient as an ‘explanation.’  

Oh.  I forgot to add in the ‘Creation’ stories, which are thousands of years older, but were included just the same to illuminate the newer stories.  If you already ‘know’ that all of this is indisputably true, then why are you asking me?

Who am I to argue with ‘sufficient explanations’ like those?  If you already ‘know’ that those stories are true, because you have a Book to show that they were once written, then my personal recommendation would be to stop right there.  It might be fair for us to ask that you live exactly and only according to what was thus ‘Written,’ if you are that strident a ‘believer’ in this ‘Word,’ and then ask you to explain to us, in the modern world, just how that is working out for you after doing so for, say, six straight months.

“And that is exactly what Mr. Willard is doing, formulating educations, with a very logical concern.”  Well, now I went back and suffered through the whole thing for the third time, just to be sure, but Mr. Willard is doing exactly the opposite of what you contend – he is not at all trying to ‘formulate educations,’ he is trying to dazzle with nonsense, and refute education – and his primary tool employed in the effort to invalidate actual thought and actual knowledge in favor of his defense of ancient dogma is the egregious misuse of logic to his own ends.  The rhetoric he employs would be laughed out of a High School debating club.  There are very few sentences that could be defended either factually or logically, and he depends entirely upon thundering oratory.

“As far as longevity goes, that is not really the point of any religious entity, to make life here longer.”   Anybody else want this one?  

And, just for the fun of it – I believe that I DID address the article, to begin with, and the ‘discussion’ has entirely devolved into a discussion of your own personal beliefs rather than an actual discussion of the thought, or lack of same, presented by Mr. Willard.  If you wish to discuss the article, in depth, I’ll be more than happy to do so.  If you wish to evangelize us with your condescending lecture of  “ . . . a way to the Father in heaven through Jesus Christ,” dogma, then perhaps it is you that has strayed away from the topic at hand . . .  

Save that ‘amen chorus’ stuff for the Forum above this one.  Here we’d like to talk like thoughtful people, unhampered by repeated assaults by ‘Witnesses’ who refuse to quit ringing our doorbells . . .


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 21, 2012)

Asath said:


> “No that is not suficient, telling me that I exist is not explaining my existance at all. You do not have an example because an example does not exist.”
> 
> Um?  First, if an example does not exist, then how is it that religions claim to provide them?  That seems a little self-negating, to argue both for and against the same proposition that you, yourself, put forward.  And if the simple fact of your own actual existence is not a sufficient explanation for the fact that you do exist, then why ask us?


I should have stated at the end, "except for "something""




> “And that is exactly what Mr. Willard is doing, formulating educations, with a very logical concern.”  Well, now I went back and suffered through the whole thing for the third time, just to be sure, but Mr. Willard is doing exactly the opposite of what you contend – he is not at all trying to ‘formulate educations,’ he is trying to dazzle with nonsense, and refute education – and his primary tool employed in the effort to invalidate actual thought and actual knowledge in favor of his defense of ancient dogma is the egregious misuse of logic to his own ends.


Ok, how about showing were some of his logic fails, I'm not saying that is doesn't, I would just like to know where.



> The rhetoric he employs would be laughed out of a High School debating club.  There are very few sentences that could be defended either factually or logically, and he depends entirely upon thundering oratory.


Right, his taught at a major university for almost 50 years, I'm sure he would "get laughed out of a high school debating club"



> And, just for the fun of it – I believe that I DID address the article, to begin with, and the ‘discussion’ *has entirely devolved into a discussion of your own personal beliefs rather than an actual discussion of the thought, or lack of same, presented by Mr. Willard.*  If you wish to discuss the article, in depth, I’ll be more than happy to do so.  If you wish to evangelize us with your condescending lecture of  “ . . . a way to the Father in heaven through Jesus Christ,” dogma, then perhaps it is you that has strayed away from the topic at hand . . .


You have yet to say much about the article except that you think Mr. Willard losses the logic game. 



> Save that ‘amen chorus’ stuff for the Forum above this one.  Here we’d like to talk like thoughtful people, unhampered by repeated assaults by ‘Witnesses’ who refuse to quit ringing our doorbells . . .


That was an answer to a question by you, if you ask a question, be ready for the possibility of an answer you may not like.

You on the other hand have turned this thread into bible bashing as usual.


----------



## Asath (Feb 22, 2012)

‘Sufficient explanation.’

That was the term employed.  Mr. Willard attempts to demonstrate that the ancient text provided such explanation, and needs no further illumination.  I merely point out that, if such an explanation, as provided in that text, is indeed ‘sufficient,’ not only to Mr. Willard but also to his modern disciples, then there is no further need for those ‘believers’ to annoy anyone other than themselves.

They need simply show their sincerity by living EXACTLY by the principles and teachings they defend with such vehemence.  Any failure to do so would constitute a de facto admission that perhaps this text doesn’t quite apply to EVERYTHING in any literal sense – and such an admission begins to erode the stance they seem to be taking, involving an acknowledgement that everything from the Biblical view of the scientific to the Biblical view of morality and back again has changed.  Even the strictest Biblical literalists do not, and cannot, live only according to Biblical writings and principles, if only because many of them are now illegal in nearly every civilized society.

Once one is clear on that, and realizes that the Book certainly has its merits, but is not by any means ‘sufficient’ as a manual or explanation for all of life, it becomes possible to view the writing in the context that it represented when it was written, and stop trying to force that context into being in the modern world or contend that such a context still obtains.  

Nobody sane is going to be either convinced or compelled to act according to this Bible verse or that one, chosen at random to justify the occasion.  Many of the verses contain solid wisdom, and cautionary tales, and very good reasons to pause and think before acting rashly.  One could choose far worse works to use as a general outline around which to construct the narrative that is and must be your own thoughts and your own life as an individual.  But your own thoughts and your own life is also informed by other sources, no less valid (to you), and hopefully those other sources are also employed as informative rather than as directives that have no rival.


----------



## fish hawk (Feb 25, 2012)

Asath said:


> ‘Sufficient explanation.’
> 
> That was the term employed.  Mr. Willard attempts to demonstrate that the ancient text provided such explanation, and needs no further illumination.  I merely point out that, if such an explanation, as provided in that text, is indeed ‘sufficient,’ not only to Mr. Willard but also to his modern disciples, then there is no further need for those ‘believers’ to annoy anyone other than themselves.
> 
> ...


Were you picked on by the girls in school?


----------



## bullethead (Feb 25, 2012)

fish hawk said:


> Were you picked on by the girls in school?



Hello Mods!

fishhawk, in 4 straight different threads you left the final replies and not one of them actually added anything to a conversation but your nonsense. Now in this one you have turned to personal insults. Read the rules.


----------



## fish hawk (Feb 25, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Hello Mods!
> 
> fishhawk, in 4 straight different threads you left the final replies and not one of them actually added anything to a conversation but your nonsense. Now in this one you have turned to personal insults. Read the rules.



Can we just make it a one stage argument.I might be able to follow along better then!!!


----------



## bullethead (Feb 25, 2012)

fish hawk said:


> Can we just make it a one stage argument.I might be able to follow along better then!!!



If you can't keep up then just walk behind gracefully. There is no need to result to insults every time you are lapped.


----------



## fish hawk (Feb 25, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Hello Mods!
> 
> . Now in this one you have turned to personal insults. Read the rules.



Thats not an insult...I just asked a question....Like yall do.Cant I ask a question and be like yall?You know it could turn into a very in-depth conversation and exchange of different views and ideas!!!


----------



## fish hawk (Feb 25, 2012)

bullethead said:


> If you can't keep up then just walk behind gracefully. There is no need to result to insults every time you are lapped.



Ha Ha.....Later bro.I gotta go to work but will check in afterwards........


----------



## bullethead (Feb 25, 2012)

fish hawk said:


> Thats not an insult...I just asked a question....Like yall do.Cant I ask a question and be like yall?You know it could turn into a very in-depth conversation and exchange of different views and ideas!!!



Then start a new thread asking if Asath or any of us were picked on by girls in school and see how long it lasts.


----------



## fish hawk (Feb 25, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Then start a new thread asking if Asath or any of us were picked on by girls in school and see how long it lasts.



Naw....Would use up too much bandwidth.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 25, 2012)

fish hawk said:


> Naw....Would use up too much bandwidth.



exactly...


----------



## StriperAddict (Feb 25, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Then start a new thread asking if Asath or any of us were picked on by girls in school and see how long it lasts.


His original question ended with 3 smileys...  indicating humor/sarcasm, which I interpret as "ya'll take a chill pill". 
I grew up in NY, where sarcasm came with political & spiritual banter. It was useful to lighten the load 


Sorry for the derail, carry on


----------



## bullethead (Feb 25, 2012)

StriperAddict said:


> His original question ended with 3 smileys...  indicating humor/sarcasm, which I interpret as "ya'll take a chill pill".
> I grew up in NY, where sarcasm came with political & spiritual banter. It was useful to lighten the load
> 
> 
> Sorry for the derail, carry on



Were you picked on by the girls in school?
Equals
"ya'll take a chill pill"
Because of three smileys at the end???

Good to know that I can say what I want and as long as three smileys lighten the mood at the end I won't be held accountable.


----------



## fish hawk (Feb 25, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Were you picked on by the girls in school?



Shoot I loved getting picked on by the girls


----------



## Asath (Feb 26, 2012)

Mostly I was picked on by their fathers . . . learned to run pretty fast back when I was in school . . . But, just the same, I WENT to school, which seems to be a rare thing here in these parts, if the thoughts expressed are any indication . . .


----------



## fish hawk (Feb 27, 2012)

Asath said:


> Mostly I was picked on by their fathers . . . learned to run pretty fast back when I was in school . . . But, just the same, I WENT to school, which seems to be a rare thing here in these parts, if the thoughts expressed are any indication . . .



Now your stereotyping!!!


----------



## stringmusic (Apr 4, 2013)

Alright Bullet, how exactly do you want to go about this?

We've both read the article, nobody in this thread, or any other thread has shown any flaws in Mr. Willards logic.


Show me where his logic fails in the first argument, specifically.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 4, 2013)

He assumes that there is a self existent being. After that it is easy to argue the points of such a being but in fact NOTHING actually points to a being like that existing in the first place.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 4, 2013)

And this thread was done a few times because despite your lack of acknowledgement, Asath did a fine job exposing the flaws.


----------



## stringmusic (Apr 4, 2013)

bullethead said:


> He assumes that there is a self existent being.


Show me, copy and paste it.



bullethead said:


> And this thread was done a few times because despite your lack of acknowledgement, Asath did a fine job exposing the flaws.



Asath said Willard "would get run out of a high school classroom" 

And, I responded to all of Asath's post in this thread if I'm not mistaken, and he came nowhere near exposing any flaws.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 4, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Show me, copy and paste it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It was your responses that were lacking not Asath's.
I can't help but wonder why the entire world has not come to the side of Willard if his Three Stages are so solid?


----------



## stringmusic (Apr 4, 2013)

bullethead said:


> It was your responses that were lacking not Asath's.
> I can't help but wonder why the entire world has not come to the side of Willard if his Three Stages are so solid?



I'm still waiting on that copy and paste.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 4, 2013)

There are two ways to prove something does not exist: one way is to demonstrate a logical contradiction and the other way is to simply look and see. Willard's "general considerations" are simply an analysis of the attributes of the object in question, and that is a prerequisite for both negative and positive existentials. We must have an adequate understanding of what an object's existence entails before we can argue for or against its existence. Positive existentials do not have an advantage over negative existentials in this sense. In other words, we must have an understanding of the nature of a god before we can determine whether that god exists.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 4, 2013)

These guys did a great job too
http://forum.gon.com/showthread.php?t=700145&page=10


----------



## stringmusic (Apr 4, 2013)

bullethead said:


> There are two ways to prove something does not exist: one way is to demonstrate a logical contradiction and the other way is to simply look and see. Willard's "general considerations" are simply an analysis of the attributes of the object in question, and that is a prerequisite for both negative and positive existentials. We must have an adequate understanding of what an object's existence entails before we can argue for or against its existence. Positive existentials do not have an advantage over negative existentials in this sense. In other words, we must have an understanding of the nature of a god before we can determine whether that god exists.



So basically, because we cannot see God, He doesn't exist.

Very compelling.....

How about a copy and paste of where Willard assumes a self existing being? You made the assurtion, let's see why.


----------



## stringmusic (Apr 4, 2013)

bullethead said:


> These guys did a great job too
> http://forum.gon.com/showthread.php?t=700145&page=10





I asked for a copy and paste multiple times in that thread too........ and I'm still waiting for it.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 4, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> So basically, because we cannot see God, He doesn't exist.
> 
> Very compelling.....
> 
> How about a copy and paste of where Willard assumes a self existing being? You made the assurtion, let's see why.



This completes the demonstration in our first stage of theistic evidence. To sum up: The dependent character of all physical states, together with the completeness of the series of dependencies underlying the existence of any given physical state, logically implies at least one self-existent, and therefore non-physical, state of being: a state of being, or an entity, radically different from those that make up the physical or "natural" world. It is demonstrably absurd that there should be a self-sufficient physical universe, if by that we mean an all-inclusive totality of entities and events of the familiar or scientific physical variety, and unless (like Spinoza) we are prepared to treat the universe itself as having an essentially different type of being from the physical:—which then just concedes our point.


----------



## stringmusic (Apr 4, 2013)

bullethead said:


> This completes the demonstration in our first stage of theistic evidence. To sum up: The dependent character of all physical states, together with the completeness of the series of dependencies underlying the existence of any given physical state, logically implies at least one self-existent, and therefore non-physical, state of being: a state of being, or an entity, radically different from those that make up the physical or "natural" world. It is demonstrably absurd that there should be a self-sufficient physical universe, if by that we mean an all-inclusive totality of entities and events of the familiar or scientific physical variety, and unless (like Spinoza) we are prepared to treat the universe itself as having an essentially different type of being from the physical:—which then just concedes our point.



Logical implications are not assumptions.


----------



## stringmusic (Apr 4, 2013)

bullethead said:


> This completes the demonstration in our first stage of theistic evidence. To sum up: The dependent character of all physical states, together with the completeness of the series of dependencies underlying the existence of any given physical state, logically implies at least one self-existent, and therefore non-physical, state of being: a state of being, or an entity, radically different from those that make up the physical or "natural" world. It is demonstrably absurd that there should be a self-sufficient physical universe, if by that we mean an all-inclusive totality of entities and events of the familiar or scientific physical variety, and unless (like Spinoza) we are prepared to treat the universe itself as having an essentially different type of being from the physical:—which then just concedes our point.



A self existing being is the logical _conclusion _to a set of rational thoughts on the things we know to be true about the universe. It is not an assumption.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 4, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> A self existing being is the logical _conclusion _to a set of rational thoughts on the things we know to be true about the universe. It is not an assumption.



Just because he says it's a logical conclusion does not make it a logical conclusion. He asserts it.


----------



## stringmusic (Apr 4, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Just because he says it's a logical conclusion does not make it a logical conclusion. He asserts it.



Why do you keep denying something that is right in your face Bullet? His conclusion is sound, and you cannot prove otherwise, if you could, you would have done it by now.

I asked you to copy and paste his assurtion, you copied and pasted a conclusion, it's so much of a conclusion, that it's at the END of the stage one argument, where conclusion go, assurtions happen in the beginning most of the time.

BTW, are you trying to say that he is assuming, and not assurting an eternal self existent being? Because assurting is actually what he's doing.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 4, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Why do you keep denying something that is right in your face Bullet? His conclusion is sound, and you cannot prove otherwise, if you could, you would have done it by now.
> 
> I asked you to copy and paste his assurtion, you copied and pasted a conclusion, it's so much of a conclusion, that it's at the END of the stage one argument, where conclusion go, assurtions happen in the beginning most of the time.
> 
> BTW, are you trying to say that he is assuming, and not assurting an eternal self existent being? Because assurting is actually what he's doing.



He has no proof of any supernatural being of any sort. So he assumes one and asserts it into his argument to somehow make it seem like it is not only possible but true.


----------



## stringmusic (Apr 4, 2013)

bullethead said:


> He has no proof of any supernatural being of any sort. So he assumes one and asserts it into his argument to somehow make it seem like it is not only possible but true.



You keep saying it, but you're not showing me. I'm going to ask one more time, and then I'm going to give up, copy and paste his assumption, with an explaination.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 4, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> You keep saying it, but you're not showing me. I'm going to ask one more time, and then I'm going to give up, copy and paste his assumption, with an explaination.



Since he has absolutely no actual proof or facts that any sort of being is true, the entire article from first word to the last period can be copy and pasted because based on his argument it is ALL an assumption.

If you think any different than SHOW ME GOD, a God any being that exists outside of this world and especially the being that can hop in and out of both worlds. Copy and paste that. All that stuff he has written and STILL no god let alone any specific god let alone any god of the bible. His method does not prove anything nor does it deduce that some being is the only viable option.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 4, 2013)

His whole concept if true only opens the door to who then designed the designer and on and on and on.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 4, 2013)

If something or someone is outside of our real world, it or he is not real.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 4, 2013)

bullethead said:


> If something or someone is outside of our real world, it or he is not real.



I heard the Devil last night......


----------



## bullethead (Apr 4, 2013)

ambush80 said:


> I heard the Devil last night......



Oh I don't doubt that. The biggest baddest supernatural sheriff in supernaturalville can't take care of the trouble maker down the block.


----------



## mtnwoman (Apr 4, 2013)

ambush80 said:


> I heard the Devil last night......



I'm sure you did...lol....he speaks thru you daily, kinda like the donkey.


----------



## mtnwoman (Apr 4, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> You keep saying it, but you're not showing me. I'm going to ask one more time, and then I'm going to give up, copy and paste his assumption, with an explaination.



Ain't gonna happen, might as well give up....but I know you can't....Christ never gives up on any of us.


----------



## mtnwoman (Apr 4, 2013)

fish hawk said:


> Shoot I loved getting picked on by the girls






I bet you did.


----------



## mtnwoman (Apr 4, 2013)

fish hawk said:


> Thats not an insult...I just asked a question....Like yall do.Cant I ask a question and be like yall?You know it could turn into a very in-depth conversation and exchange of different views and ideas!!!



Oh, are you kiddin'? I get the same thing almost everytime I post anything to certain people. They can, but you can't.  But everyone knows it and expects it, so not to worry on your part.


----------



## stringmusic (Apr 5, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Since he has absolutely no actual proof or facts that any sort of being is true, the entire article from first word to the last period can be copy and pasted because based on his argument it is ALL an assumption.
> 
> If you think any different than SHOW ME GOD, a God any being that exists outside of this world and especially the being that can hop in and out of both worlds. Copy and paste that. All that stuff he has written and STILL no god let alone any specific god let alone any god of the bible. His method does not prove anything nor does it deduce that some being is the only viable option.


Just as I expected, I'm giving up, you can't show me faulty logic in the article.


bullethead said:


> His whole concept if true only opens the door to who then designed the designer and on and on and on.


Go read the article again.


ambush80 said:


> I heard the Devil last night......


Congratulations?


----------



## JB0704 (Apr 5, 2013)

bullethead said:


> If something or someone is outside of our real world, it or he is not real.



Unless more than one reality exists.  Oh the possibilities......


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 5, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> Unless more than one reality exists.  Oh the possibilities......



Scientists and mathematicians have postulated the possibility of other universes but not quite in the same way as indigenous cave dwellers. 

I try to imagine how the first notions of a Heaven or a Nirvana or a Happy Hunting Ground might have come about and how those ancient people might have come up with the ideas of  gods or spirits and so forth.  It makes sense. Especially with the Ancient's lack of information.  Fast forward to now.  Willard, like the ancients has found the 'God of the Gaps'.  The last ditch effort to ascribe a cause to everything that is.  

Lets all gather at the helm of the star ship Enterprise, throw it into warp drive and talk about the possibilities of other realities.  Look! there's semi translucent, nebulous lifeforms planting Seeds of Life on comets and sending them forth through the galaxies.  Look over there!  The Nebuloids are creating a god for people to worship....

See where this goes? 

String, please offer your comments, too as they relate to Willard.


----------



## stringmusic (Apr 5, 2013)

ambush80 said:


> Scientists and mathematicians have postulated the possibility of other universes but not quite in the same way as indigenous cave dwellers.
> 
> I try to imagine how the first notions of a Heaven or a Nirvana or a Happy Hunting Ground might have come about and how those ancient people might have come up with the ideas of  gods or spirits and so forth.  It makes sense. Especially with the Ancient's lack of information.  Fast forward to now.  Willard, like the ancients has found the 'God of the Gaps'.  The last ditch effort to ascribe a cause to everything that is.
> 
> ...



I'm not really sure what you want me to comment about.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 5, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> I'm not really sure what you want me to comment about.



That Willard has found the "God of the Gaps" and I say that there are space aliens, even more supernatural-er who created god.


----------



## stringmusic (Apr 5, 2013)

ambush80 said:


> That Willard has found the "God of the Gaps" and I say that there are space aliens, even more supernatural-er who created god.



I don't believe he simply "plugs in" God, there is a cognitive argument that is made. Willard uses sound logic and reasoning to come to a conclusion(I'm talking first argument)

The argument in stage one gives the parameters that lend to a reasonable conclusion that there exists an eternal self existent being, one in which needs no creator.



> A more serious and perhaps more "common sense" objection to my position, but one that is, I think, answerable, is contained in the child's question: "Mommy, where did God come from?" (He's just been told that God made trees and clouds, you know.) In our terminology: "Where did this self-existent being come from?" And the answer is that He (She, It) didn't come from anything because He didn't come at all.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 5, 2013)

Willard"s stages 1&2 are good for getting the brain really thinking but in stage 3 he is already onto one specific god and Jesus and that to me is where everything he gained in 1&2 falls apart.


----------



## JB0704 (Apr 5, 2013)

ambush80 said:


> Scientists and mathematicians have postulated the possibility of other universes but not quite in the same way as indigenous cave dwellers.



Hmmm.....I am not really sure what can be known about what can't be known.....

But, really, wouldn't it be presumptuous to assume our universe is the only one?  Heck, this universe could be the who's down in whoville......with a great big elephant riding through eternity carrying us along......

The point is that we don't know much about what can't be known, and we never will.  All we have is the facts in front of us.  We are here.  That's the ending point.  We came from somewhere.  That's the starting point.  Then, we have the gaps to fill.  Infinity. God. It's a "choose your own adventure" when discussing origins and the universe.

It would seem that you choose the path of infinity, where Willard, and myself, choose a path of God.  One makes sense to you, the other makes sense to me.  However, we are both filling the gaps using the logic which appeals to us as sound.


----------



## stringmusic (Apr 5, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Willard"s stages 1&2 are good for getting the brain really thinking but in stage 3 he is already onto one specific god and Jesus and that to me is where everything he gained in 1&2 falls apart.



I don't think it makes arguments 1 and 2 fall apart, they stand on their own merits, but the argument in stage 3 is where one could find the most fault(even though I obviously find no fault there)

However, the third part of the argument is still very well thought out and reasonable.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 5, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> I don't think it makes arguments 1 and 2 fall apart, they stand on their own merits, but the argument in stage 3 is where one could find the most fault(even though I obviously find no fault there)
> 
> However, the third part of the argument is still very well thought out and reasonable.



Well thought and reasonable but at that stage ANY god could be given the same credit.
For all anyone knows there could be an eternal infinite amount of energy that got the ball rolling and we and everything in the Universe are the by product.


----------



## stringmusic (Apr 5, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Well thought and reasonable but at that stage ANY god could be given the same credit.


Yes, any god could be given credit, arguments 1 and 2 are more about intelligent design than crediting any certian god.



> For all anyone knows there could be an eternal infinite amount of energy that got the ball rolling and we and everything in the Universe are the by product.



I don't think energy is intelligent, or even conscious.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 5, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Yes, any god could be given credit, arguments 1 and 2 are more about intelligent design that crediting a god.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think energy is intelligent, or even conscious.



Nor does it have to be. Our bodies are made up of everything that is found on the planet and elsewhere in the Universe.


----------



## JB0704 (Apr 5, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Our bodies are made up of everything that is found on the planet and elsewhere in the Universe.



I'll be impressed when somebody gathers those materials together and creates a live duck.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 5, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> I'll be impressed when somebody gathers those materials together and creates a live duck.



I would be too. Till then we'll have to just pretend ducks are alive.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 5, 2013)

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/space/star-in-you.html


----------



## bullethead (Apr 5, 2013)

http://www.lenntech.com/periodic-chart-elements/human-body.htm


----------



## JB0704 (Apr 5, 2013)

Bullet, I have no doubt that the elements in my body are found throughout the universe.  I have no doubt there are multiple theories on how and why I am able to use those elements to have intelligent thoughts.  I also have no doubt that nobody will ever be able to replicate the process.


----------



## stringmusic (Apr 5, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Nor does it have to be. Our bodies are made up of everything that is found on the planet and elsewhere in the Universe.



Yet here we are, intelligent and conscious, unlike energy.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 5, 2013)

This guy might be on the right track:
http://www.hhmi.org/research/investigators/szostak.html


----------



## bullethead (Apr 5, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Yet here we are, intelligent and conscious, unlike energy.



You know we did not just get plunked here chock full of intelligence.


----------



## JB0704 (Apr 5, 2013)

bullethead said:


> This guy might be on the right track:
> http://www.hhmi.org/research/investigators/szostak.html



Seems he sure hopes he is. Lot's of hope in that website. Not a whole lot of results, but interesting that we aer willing to cling to hope in our efforts to avoid having to believe in God, which gives us hope.


----------



## JB0704 (Apr 5, 2013)

bullethead said:


> You know we did not just get plunked here chock full of intelligence.



Nah.....I know nobody is claiming that.  The point is that life can't be replicated.


----------



## stringmusic (Apr 5, 2013)

bullethead said:


> You know we did not just get plunked here chock full of intelligence.



I know "we" weren't floating around as space junk one day and then became intelligent.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 5, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> I know "we" weren't floating around as space junk one day and then became intelligent.


You're probably right that it didn't happen in one day. It took millions upon billions of years for it to happen.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 5, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> Nah.....I know nobody is claiming that.  The point is that life can't be replicated.



I think string might think that.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 5, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> Seems he sure hopes he is. Lot's of hope in that website. Not a whole lot of results, but interesting that we aer willing to cling to hope in our efforts to avoid having to believe in God, which gives us hope.



Lots of progress on that site too.


----------



## stringmusic (Apr 5, 2013)

bullethead said:


> You're probably right that it didn't happen in one day. It took millions upon billions of years for it to happen.



I wasn't trying to say it happened on one day, either way, it didn't happen over billions upon billions of years either.

Unconscious space goo can float around for trillions upon gazillions of years and it still ain't gonna happen.


----------



## stringmusic (Apr 5, 2013)

bullethead said:


> I think string might think that.



Intelligence is relative. I don't think Adam and Eve were as technologically advanced as I am.


----------



## JB0704 (Apr 5, 2013)

bullethead said:


> I think string might think that.



String and I share many beliefs.  We may differ on the mechanics of origins a bit, but not the source.


----------



## JB0704 (Apr 5, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Unconscious space goo can float around for trillions upon gazillions of years and it still ain't gonna happen.



....and for proof, let's all watch some goo for a while and see what happens.  

Yep, some fella gets in a lab and says "I hope I can figure out why cells began evolving" and the skeptics will cling to it, much like we clingo our guns and religion.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 5, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> Seems he sure hopes he is. Lot's of hope in that website. Not a whole lot of results, but interesting that we aer willing to cling to hope in our efforts to avoid having to believe in God, which gives us hope.



Belief in god gave me fear.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 5, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Intelligence is relative. I don't think Adam and Eve were as technologically advanced as I am.



That is a good thing since "One of these things are not like the other ones.....one of these things is just not the same..."

(your real)


----------



## JB0704 (Apr 5, 2013)

ambush80 said:


> Belief in god gave me fear.



I see, and now you hope for a better existence without him?


----------



## bullethead (Apr 5, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> ....and for proof, let's all watch some goo for a while and see what happens.
> 
> Yep, some fella gets in a lab and says "I hope I can figure out why cells began evolving" and the skeptics will cling to it, much like we clingo our guns and religion.



Ahh but at least someone is willing to try and not say,"I don't understand it, therefore God did it".


----------



## bullethead (Apr 5, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> ....and for proof, let's all watch some goo for a while and see what happens.
> 
> Yep, some fella gets in a lab and says "I hope I can figure out why cells began evolving" and the skeptics will cling to it, much like we clingo our guns and religion.



well, guns for me anyway.....


----------



## JB0704 (Apr 5, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Ahh but at least someone is willing to try and not say,"I don't understand it, therefore God did it".



Without results, does one approach have value over the other?  Can that be objectively determined?


----------



## JB0704 (Apr 5, 2013)

bullethead said:


> well, guns for me anyway.....



We have that in common


----------



## bullethead (Apr 5, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> Without results, does one approach have value over the other?  Can that be objectively determined?




 Man-Made Genetic Instructions Yield Living Cells for the First Time

Scientists create the first microbe to live under the instruction of DNA synthesized in the lab

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=synthetic-genome-cell


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 5, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> I see, and now you hope for a better existence without him?



My existence is better without him.


----------



## stringmusic (Apr 5, 2013)

bullethead said:


> That is a good thing since "One of these things are not like the other ones.....one of these things is just not the same..."
> 
> (your real)



I'm not really sure what point you're trying to get across here, but when all else fails, the "yea, but God isn't real" argument will always work.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 5, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> I'm not really sure what point you're trying to get across here, but when all else fails, the "yea, but God isn't real" argument will always work.



Point is: all of mankind did not originate from the adam and eve of the bible.


----------



## drippin' rock (Apr 7, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Why do you keep denying something that is right in your face Bullet? His conclusion is sound, and you cannot prove otherwise, if you could, you would have done it by now.
> 
> I asked you to copy and paste his assurtion, you copied and pasted a conclusion, it's so much of a conclusion, that it's at the END of the stage one argument, where conclusion go, assurtions happen in the beginning most of the time.
> 
> BTW, are you trying to say that he is assuming, and not assurting an eternal self existent being? Because assurting is actually what he's doing.


I could write an article stating I saw a purple elephant running through my back yard with a black panther and bigfoot on top, and in the end say the logical conclusion is they exist.  Until I produce hides or a video, regardless of my claims, the entire article is an assumption.

How is that different than the referenced article?


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 7, 2013)

drippin' rock said:


> I could write an article stating I saw a purple elephant running through my back yard with a black panther and bigfoot on top, and in the end say the logical conclusion is they exist.  Until I produce hides or a video, regardless of my claims, the entire article is an assumption.
> 
> How is that different than the referenced article?



...sort of.  What Willard is saying that all the stuff can't be infinite so that MUST mean that some force that is infinite and exists in a special plane caused it all.  

Sounds screwey but OK, Maybe......

He goes on to state that this 'thing' has intelligence.  Furthermore he states that this thing is the god of the Bible, the one that makes donkeys and burning bushes talk at which point it becomes all too easy to lump him in with a Bigfoot junkie.


----------



## JB0704 (Apr 7, 2013)

ambush80 said:


> ...sort of.  What Willard is saying that all the stuff can't be infinite so that MUST mean that some force that is infinite and exists in a special plane caused it all.



I got into this a bit in the other thread I started, but you have one or the other.....an infinite regress or an OC.




ambush80 said:


> ...He goes on to state that this 'thing' has intelligence.



If the OC was a force, and the universe is by design, then I would say that is an extremely reasonable conclusion.  Your argument is with the initial "if."


----------



## drippin' rock (Apr 7, 2013)

ambush80 said:


> ...sort of.  What Willard is saying that all the stuff can't be infinite so that MUST mean that some force that is infinite and exists in a special plane caused it all.
> 
> Sounds screwey but OK, Maybe......
> 
> He goes on to state that this 'thing' has intelligence.  Furthermore he states that this thing is the god of the Bible, the one that makes donkeys and burning bushes talk at which point it becomes all too easy to lump him in with a Bigfoot junkie.



I know this off topic, but I wonder sometimes if mushrooms had more to do with talking donkeys and burning bushes than did an omniscient presence.


----------



## mtnwoman (Apr 7, 2013)

drippin' rock said:


> I know this off topic, but I wonder sometimes if mushrooms had more to do with talking donkeys and burning bushes than did an omniscient presence.



I doubt they 'et' organic shrooms straight outta the cow patties in Gainsville FL (shroom capital of the world)....then. They musta et some 'processed'/cut shrooms. Cut with the same thing 'acid' is...manmade chemicals....ie rat poison....you can trip on that, too...then again maybe they did do a mind expanding drug.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 8, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> I got into this a bit in the other thread I started, but you have one or the other.....an infinite regress or an OC.



Or something you nor I nor Moses had any clue about.



JB0704 said:


> If the OC was a force, and the universe is by design, then I would say that is an extremely reasonable conclusion.  Your argument is with the initial "if."



And where did you get these ideas?


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Apr 28, 2013)

Asath said:


> Hoo boy!  Okay – since y’all waited for me --  Argument FOR god?  Really?
> 
> Right out of the gate --
> 
> ...





Brother you may want to rethink this post before it causes you any further embarrassment.  Irrespective of religious beliefs, it's an assault on intelligence, an insult to integrity, and I am deeply embarrassed for you.  I would just delete it.


----------



## stringmusic (Apr 2, 2014)

Just for Bullet.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 2, 2014)

stringmusic said:


> Just for Bullet.



Neat
Now for an encore ask the same questions, get solid answers and then ask the same questions again as if it were the first time..paired with this bumped up thread it will be like you never slowed your posting down at all.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 2, 2014)

Question: Since everything in the universe requires a cause, must not the universe itself have a cause, which is god?

Answer: There are two basic fallacies in this argument. The first is the assumption that, if the universe required a causal explanation, the positing of a "god" would provide it. To posit god as the creator of the universe is only to push the problem back one step farther: Who then created the god? Was there still an earlier god who created the god in question? We are thus led to an infinite regress - the very dilemma that the positing of a "god" was intended to solve. But if it is argued that no one created god, that god does not require a cause, that god has existed eternally - then on what grounds is it denied that the universe has existed eternally?

It is true that there cannot be an infinite series of antecedent causes. But recognition of this fact should lead one to reappraise the validity of the initial question, not to attempt to answer it by stepping outside the universe into some gratuitously invented supernatural dimension.

This leads to the second and more fundamental fallacy in this argument: the assumption that the universe as a whole requires a causal explanation. It does not. The universe is the total of that which exists. Within the universe, the emergence of new entities can be explained in terms of the actions of entities that already exist: The cause of a tree is the seed of the parent tree; the cause of a machine is the purposeful reshaping of matter by men. All actions presuppose the existence of entities - and all emergences of new entities presuppose the existence of entities that caused their emergence. All causality presupposes the existence of something that acts as a cause. To demand a cause for all of existence is to demand a contradiction: if the cause exists, it is part of existence; if it does not exist, it cannot be a cause. Nothing cannot be the cause of something. Nothing does not exist. Causality presupposes existence; existence does not presuppose causality. There can be no cause "outside" of existence or "anterior" to it. The forms of existence may change and evolve, but the fact of existence is the irreducible primary at the base of all causal chains. Existence - not "god" - is the First Cause.

Just as the concept of causality applies to events and entities within the universe, but not to the universe as a whole - so the concept of time applies to events and entities within the universe, but not to the universe as a whole. The universe did not "begin" - it did not, at some point in time "spring into being." Time is a measurement of motion. Motion presupposes entities that move. If nothing existed, there could be no time. Time is "in" the universe; the universe is not "in" time.

The man who asks, "Where did existence come from?" or "What caused it?" is the man who has never grasped that existence exists. This is the mentality of a savage or a mystic who regards existence as some sort of incomprehensible miracle - and seeks to "explain" it by reference to non-existence.

Existence is all that exists, the nonexistent does not exist; there is nothing for existence to have come out of - and nothing means nothing. If you are tempted to ask, "What's outside the universe?" - recognize that you are asking, "What's outside of existence?" and that the idea of "something outside of existence" is a contradiction in terms; nothing is outside of existence, and "nothing" is not just another kind of "something" - it is nothing. Existence exists: you cannot go outside it; you cannot get under it, on top of it, or behind it. Existence exists - and only existence exists: There is nowhere else to go.

-- Nathaniel Branden PH.D Author, Psychologist


----------



## JB0704 (Apr 2, 2014)

bullethead said:


> Question: Since everything in the universe requires a cause, must not the universe itself have a cause, which is god?
> 
> Answer: There are two basic fallacies in this argument. The first is the assumption that, if the universe required a causal explanation, the positing of a "god" would provide it. To posit god as the creator of the universe is only to push the problem back one step farther: Who then created the god? Was there still an earlier god who created the god in question? We are thus led to an infinite regress - the very dilemma that the positing of a "god" was intended to solve. But if it is argued that no one created god, that god does not require a cause, that god has existed eternally - then on what grounds is it denied that the universe has existed eternally?
> 
> ...



Bullet, I read just a few days ago scientists theorizing about multiple universes each expanding as our own (which brings up it's own set of questions).  That being the case, we can probably strike BRaden's last paragraph out-of-hand.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 2, 2014)

JB0704 said:


> Bullet, I read just a few days ago scientists theorizing about multiple universes each expanding as our own (which brings up it's own set of questions).  That being the case, we can probably strike BRaden's last paragraph out-of-hand.



Well...if other universes exist.........they would be included in existence. That is what is so great about science, it adapts as the information becomes available.


----------



## JB0704 (Apr 2, 2014)

bullethead said:


> Well...if other universes exist.........they would be included in existence. That is what is so great about science, it adapts as the information becomes available.



He says that which is outside of the universe is outside of existence.  Existence may include more than our universe.  Our understanding of existence is limited to what is contained inside our universe.  



> This leads to the second and more fundamental fallacy in this argument: the assumption that the universe as a whole requires a causal explanation. It does not. The universe is the total of that which exists. Within the universe, the emergence of new entities can be explained in terms of the actions of entities that already exist: The cause of a tree is the seed of the parent tree; the cause of a machine is the purposeful reshaping of matter by men. All actions presuppose the existence of entities - and all emergences of new entities presuppose the existence of entities that caused their emergence. All causality presupposes the existence of something that acts as a cause. To demand a cause for all of existence is to demand a contradiction: if the cause exists, it is part of existence; if it does not exist, it cannot be a cause. Nothing cannot be the cause of something. Nothing does not exist. Causality presupposes existence; existence does not presuppose causality. There can be no cause "outside" of existence or "anterior" to it. The forms of existence may change and evolve, but the fact of existence is the irreducible primary at the base of all causal chains. Existence - not "god" - is the First Cause.



Do you see the problem?  First, if a Christian spoke with such authority of the unknowns, you guys would shred it.  Second, he is limiting existence to the universe which is known, through science, to be expanding.  Today, many scientists theorize that other universes may, or can, exist beyond our universe.  This would make it impossible to "know" that the universe is the total of existence until it is proven that our universe is the only one.


----------



## WaltL1 (Apr 3, 2014)

> First, if a Christian spoke with such authority of the unknowns


Ok that made me chuckle


----------



## JB0704 (Apr 3, 2014)

WaltL1 said:


> Ok that made me chuckle





But, that's kind-a my point


----------



## bullethead (Apr 3, 2014)

JB0704 said:


> He says that which is outside of the universe is outside of existence.  Existence may include more than our universe.  Our understanding of existence is limited to what is contained inside our universe.
> 
> 
> 
> Do you see the problem?  First, if a Christian spoke with such authority of the unknowns, you guys would shred it.  Second, he is limiting existence to the universe which is known, through science, to be expanding.  Today, many scientists theorize that other universes may, or can, exist beyond our universe.  This would make it impossible to "know" that the universe is the total of existence until it is proven that our universe is the only one.



He is not saying anything outside of the Universe is a cause for our existence.
Right now nobody knows whether or not there is anything outside of our Universe. The multi-verse  theories have been around for a long time and as far as I know No-one is claiming to have any knowledge about another universe, let alone multiple universes, let alone be an authority about it. 
On the other hand, and since you brought it up......Christians do(and it is shown in here almost by the minute) speak with authority about the unknowns. They don't say "this could be" they tell everybody else,with no one more interested in what they have to say than another Christian that "this IS" and then go into great detail about something they have never seen,heard, interacted with, held a conversation with etc etc etc.....all they have is a book. Literally a book.

I would guess that if a god can be a little more tangible  it will included in existence. Nathaniel Branden's phrase "nothing does not exist" is spot on.


----------



## JB0704 (Apr 3, 2014)

bullethead said:


> He is not saying anything outside of the Universe is a cause for our existence.



....



			
				Branden said:
			
		

> The universe is the total of that which exists.



If he is correct, then he is saying nothing outside our universe is the cause of existence.



bullethead said:


> Right now nobody knows whether or not there is anything outside of our Universe. The multi-verse  theories have been around for a long time and as far as I know No-one is claiming to have any knowledge about another universe, let alone multiple universes, let alone be an authority about it.



.....



			
				Branden said:
			
		

> The universe is the total of that which exists.






bullethead said:


> On the other hand, and since you brought it up......Christians do(and it is shown in here almost by the minute) speak with authority about the unknowns. They don't say "this could be" they tell everybody else,with no one more interested in what they have to say than another Christian that "this IS" and then go into great detail about something they have never seen,heard, interacted with, held a conversation with etc etc etc.....all they have is a book. Literally a book.



I can't speak for everybody, just me.  



bullethead said:


> I would guess that if a god can be a little more tangible  it will included in existence. Nathaniel Branden's phrase "nothing does not exist" is spot on.



Yes.  God would be included in existence.  We can debate the word nothing if you like, but, depending on it's use, nothing is something.


----------



## 660griz (Apr 3, 2014)

JB0704 said:


> ... but, depending on it's use, nothing is something.



Like when you ask kids what they are doing? Uh...nothing. (shed catches on fire)


----------



## JB0704 (Apr 3, 2014)

660griz said:


> Like when you ask kids what they are doing? Uh...nothing. (shed catches on fire)


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Apr 4, 2014)

String.  Glad you bumped this.  It's another example of a sound argument for God.  My only problem is that I made the mistake of listening to Dallas on the Veritas Forum before I read the article.
He is such a dry speaker he puts me to sleep.  Now anytime I read his writings I hear his monotone voice in my head.  As a result I can only read a bit of what he writes at a time just as if I was listening to him.  I know that sounds crazy, but I do the same with Ravi.  I can hear his accent when I read his books.


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 28, 2017)

I just read this entire thread again.... I don't know why, but it's interesting.

Maybe 3 years later, somebody can at least make me contemplate that the article doesn't use sound logic.


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 1, 2017)

stringmusic said:


> I just read this entire thread again.... I don't know why, but it's interesting.
> 
> Maybe 3 years later, somebody can at least make me contemplate that the article doesn't use sound logic.



Presupposition of God.


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 1, 2017)

ambush80 said:


> Presupposition of God.



Pin point that for me.


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 1, 2017)

He's speaking with authority about something that nobody knows about and he gives it a personality. 

"There's a THING out there in the Nether Regions that caused everything."

That could be anything or nothing because we don't know anything about the Nether Regions or if they even exist.  You may as well believe in Multiverse Theory.  We tend to think of things in terms of 'beings' because we're egocentric.


----------



## j_seph (Mar 1, 2017)

If so little has been proven and yet there
is so much left to learn, and we have a
history book in simple terms, passed down
through thousands of years, the holy bible
then how can anyone say that god does not
exist? It has yet to be proven that he does
not exist. There is a history book of his 
existence to explore and to me is more than
enough fact then the unproven of his existence.


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 1, 2017)

ambush80 said:


> He's speaking with authority about something that nobody knows about and he gives it a personality.
> 
> "There's a THING out there in the Nether Regions that caused everything."


Is that the logical conclusion you come to after reading the first argument? If not, why not?



> That could be anything or nothing because we don't know anything about the Nether Regions or if they even exist.  You may as well believe in Multiverse Theory.  We tend to think of things in terms of 'beings' because we're egocentric.


I don't see how that "something" could be nothing, we still have the law of non contradiction.

It has to be something, unless you believe nothing created something. He goes on to logically conclude in part two of the argument that the something is intelligent, but let's see if we can come to some type of agreement that there isn't any logical fallacies in the first argument.


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 1, 2017)

j_seph said:


> If so little has been proven and yet there
> is so much left to learn, and we have a
> history book in simple terms, passed down
> through thousands of years, the holy bible
> ...



Nobody can conclude God doesn't exist. One can conclude they personally don't have the evidence they want to conclude God does exist.


----------



## WaltL1 (Mar 1, 2017)

j_seph said:


> If so little has been proven and yet there
> is so much left to learn, and we have a
> history book in simple terms, passed down
> through thousands of years, the holy bible
> ...





> we have a history book


The Bible is NOT a history book.


> in simple terms


Yeah so simple even Christians don't agree on what it says.


> passed down through thousands of years,


And changed, edited, deleted from, added to..........


> yet to be proven that he does not exist


See Argument from Ignorance


> to me is more than enough fact then the unproven of his existence


There are a number of books that contain the history of Harry Potter. He also is unproven not to exist.


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 1, 2017)

stringmusic said:


> Is that the logical conclusion you come to after reading the first argument? If not, why not?



No. I don't conclude that. I don't come to conclusions about things I don't know about.  

Willard just throws an arbitrary roadblock into the infinite regression.  He just says "Well, it stops here at this thing".  He doesn't know anything about that thing.  It's made up.  




stringmusic said:


> I don't see how that "something" could be nothing, we still have the law of non contradiction.



You don't see it because you don't have all the information on how it could be (or not be, as it were).  

But the law of non contradiction doesn't apply to the uncaused cause?  What's the point of bringing it up then?



stringmusic said:


> It has to be something, unless you believe nothing created something. He goes on to logically conclude in part two of the argument that the something is intelligent, but let's see if we can come to some type of agreement that there isn't any logical fallacies in the first argument.



https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/something-from-nothing-vacuum-can-yield-flashes-of-light/

https://medium.com/the-physics-arxi...aneously-from-nothing-ed7ed0f304a3#.7fhc7914t

These postulations carry more weight than Willard's philosophical argument because they use instruments to observe natural phenomena and mathematics.  I trust math and measurement.


----------



## j_seph (Mar 1, 2017)

WaltL1
What would it take for you to believe?


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 1, 2017)

ambush80 said:


> No. I don't conclude that. I don't come to conclusions about things I don't know about.
> 
> Willard just throws an arbitrary roadblock into the infinite regression.  He just says "Well, it stops here at this thing".  He doesn't know anything about that thing.  It's made up.


Where, specifically, does he arbitrarily throw this roadblock? 

The entire first argument is a logical explanation of *why* everything stops here.





> But the law of non contradiction doesn't apply to the uncaused cause?  What's the point of bringing it up then?


The law of non contradiction states that something can't be different  two things at the same time, or a question cannot have two contradicting answers. I don't see why or how it would apply to an uncaused cause. 





> https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/something-from-nothing-vacuum-can-yield-flashes-of-light/
> 
> https://medium.com/the-physics-arxi...aneously-from-nothing-ed7ed0f304a3#.7fhc7914t


Virtual particles isn't nothing.



> These postulations carry more weight than Willard's philosophical argument because they use instruments to observe natural phenomena and mathematics.  I trust math and measurement.


I see them as two different things, one is a philosophical argument and one is a science experiment, and both should hold weight.


----------



## WaltL1 (Mar 1, 2017)

j_seph said:


> WaltL1
> What would it take for you to believe?



faith  
n
1. strong or unshakeable belief in something, especially without proof or evidence. 

What would it take for you to believe in all the gods you don't believe to exist?


----------



## j_seph (Mar 1, 2017)

WaltL1 said:


> faith
> n
> 1. strong or unshakeable belief in something, especially without proof or evidence.
> 
> What would it take for you to believe in all the gods you don't believe to exist?


I am asking personally, what would it take for YOU to believe in one God? Would it take you asking for God to drop an apple at your feet from out of no where? Would it take him laying his hand on you and pushing you so you could feel him? Yes it takes faith, are you saying you have no faith in one God or you have faith in multiple Gods?

My faith lies in one God, one creator. I watched my wife go through high blood pressure to the point she has diastolic heart failure, taking 3 to 4 pills a day. To being admitted to hospital with chest pains and trouble breathing. From that many prayers going out through our church and friends. Outcome was they could not find anything in bloodwork, chest x-ray, chest catscan, nothing found with heart cath through artery and vein. Her BP since that day has been below the quoted 120/80 without any meds to control it. Doctor asked what she was doing different, we told him prayer, lots of prayer. He asked once or twice more what she had changed or was doing different. End result is no high BP and nothing has been changed in her carnal life today as it was a month ago or a year ago.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 1, 2017)

stringmusic said:


> I just read this entire thread again.... I don't know why, but it's interesting.
> 
> Maybe 3 years later, somebody can at least make me contemplate that the article doesn't use sound logic.



And another typical string move bringing up that which has  been talked about and answered , rehashed,  brought back up again later when he thinks everyone else has forgotten about it, rehashed yet again and answered again then three years later bumped back up to the top  again after it was discussed again in a different thread that string brought the argument into.

Where does it say...?
Right here string...
But where?
Right here string....
Yeah but where does it say...?
Same place as last year string....
Yeah but remember that thing  we talked about and five guys gave direct answers to...I want to to ask the same question again but in a different way....
Yep, still been answered already string...

Ok, ill ask again next year.


----------



## WaltL1 (Mar 1, 2017)

j_seph said:


> I am asking personally, what would it take for YOU to believe in one God? Would it take you asking for God to drop an apple at your feet from out of no where? Would it take him laying his hand on you and pushing you so you could feel him? Yes it takes faith, are you saying you have no faith in one God or you have faith in multiple Gods?
> 
> My faith lies in one God, one creator. I watched my wife go through high blood pressure to the point she has diastolic heart failure, taking 3 to 4 pills a day. To being admitted to hospital with chest pains and trouble breathing. From that many prayers going out through our church and friends. Outcome was they could not find anything in bloodwork, chest x-ray, chest catscan, nothing found with heart cath through artery and vein. Her BP since that day has been below the quoted 120/80 without any meds to control it. Doctor asked what she was doing different, we told him prayer, lots of prayer. He asked once or twice more what she had changed or was doing different. End result is no high BP and nothing has been changed in her carnal life today as it was a month ago or a year ago.





> I am asking personally, what would it take for YOU to believe in one God?


First,
Glad to hear your wife is doing well. 
I'm very familiar with the medical issues and procedures she had and its certainly no fun.
Second, 
I was being honest that it would take "faith". I say that due to the fact that the existence of a god (any of them) can't be proven by either fact or a preponderance of the evidence at this point. So for me to believe, in one or any of them, it would take faith.
As for what personal experience I would have to have to override that, I'm honestly not sure. Is it possible I could have that kind of experience? Sure. I assume an omni-everything god (in the case of the Christian God supposedly) would know exactly what it would take even if I don't. So far..... crickets.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 1, 2017)

j_seph said:


> I am asking personally, what would it take for YOU to believe in one God? Would it take you asking for God to drop an apple at your feet from out of no where? Would it take him laying his hand on you and pushing you so you could feel him? Yes it takes faith, are you saying you have no faith in one God or you have faith in multiple Gods?
> 
> My faith lies in one God, one creator. I watched my wife go through high blood pressure to the point she has diastolic heart failure, taking 3 to 4 pills a day. To being admitted to hospital with chest pains and trouble breathing. From that many prayers going out through our church and friends. Outcome was they could not find anything in bloodwork, chest x-ray, chest catscan, nothing found with heart cath through artery and vein. Her BP since that day has been below the quoted 120/80 without any meds to control it. Doctor asked what she was doing different, we told him prayer, lots of prayer. He asked once or twice more what she had changed or was doing different. End result is no high BP and nothing has been changed in her carnal life today as it was a month ago or a year ago.


I also am glad to hear of your wife's upturn in her health.
Has she done any other lifestyle changes like diet, exercise, stop smoking or similar steps?

Do you know if that doctor now recommends prayer to his other patients?

And in your opinion what is the contributing factor to other people with medical problems who have also had improvements in their health from praying to their god (s) or carrying a lucky charm  etc?


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 1, 2017)

stringmusic said:


> Where, specifically, does he arbitrarily throw this roadblock?
> 
> The entire first argument is a logical explanation of *why* everything stops here.



I interpret Willard's argument to be that everything has to have a cause.......except the uncaused cause.  Is that what you think He's saying?  See this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down



stringmusic said:


> The law of non contradiction states that something can't be different  two things at the same time, or a question cannot have two contradicting answers. I don't see why or how it would apply to an uncaused cause.




"Everything has to have a beginning....except this ONE thing"  That's a contradiction.



stringmusic said:


> Virtual particles isn't nothing.



That explanation tries to shift the the definition of nothing.  I don't agree with it.  The point is that anyone can posit "eternal_____".  People who latch on to the idea of an eternal "guy" like the idea of an eternal guy. It could be turtles all the way down.




stringmusic said:


> I see them as two different things, one is a philosophical argument and one is a science experiment, and both should hold weight.



Enjoy:

http://io9.gizmodo.com/the-7-most-intriguing-philosophical-arguments-for-the-e-1507393670

Did you ever see this?  Look at the end of my post where I give my best reasons for the existence of God.  Do you think you could give three reasons against the existence of God?:

http://forum.gon.com/showpost.php?p=10609796&postcount=397


----------



## red neck richie (Mar 1, 2017)

ambush80 said:


> I will concede that in order for his "logic" to work that he assumes a God.
> 
> 
> 
> My point exactly.  He is using examples of physical phenomena: "Triton had to pass such and such before it could get to such and such..."  and then midstream asserts that a force that is not subject to said phenomena is responsible.  I'm no genius but I'm pretty sure that that's a 15 yard penalty.



Ambush do you feel Love? How do you know Love exists. I have no scientific proof I only know what I feel. I only Know what I witness. I only know what I experience. Because you don't understand it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I think you should stop listening to others and more to your heart.


----------



## red neck richie (Mar 1, 2017)

red neck richie said:


> Ambush do you feel Love? How do you know Love exists. I have no scientific proof I only know what I feel. I only Know what I witness. I only know what I experience. Because you don't understand it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I think you should stop listening to others and more to your heart.



You want to dismiss feeling as truth. But I feel love I feel anger I feel Hurt I feel pain. How do you prove they exist when you know you feel them? I'm not talking about a physical pain but an emotional pain That hurts your being.


----------



## welderguy (Mar 1, 2017)

bullethead said:


> And another typical string move bringing up that which has  been talked about and answered , rehashed,  brought back up again later when he thinks everyone else has forgotten about it, rehashed yet again and answered again then three years later bumped back up to the top  again after it was discussed again in a different thread that string brought the argument into.
> 
> Where does it say...?
> Right here string...
> ...



Go back and re-read post #630-#633 of the "what is true" thread.(key word "string")


----------



## WaltL1 (Mar 1, 2017)

red neck richie said:


> You want to dismiss feeling as truth. But I feel love I feel anger I feel Hurt I feel pain. How do you prove they exist when you know you feel them? I'm not talking about a physical pain but an emotional pain That hurts your being.





> How do you prove they exist when you know you feel them? I'm not talking about a physical pain but an emotional pain That hurts your being.



HEALTHY LIVING 06/23/2013 10:38 am ET 
Brain Activity Can Reveal Emotions, Study Finds

Scientists have found a way to determine what emotions you’re feeling by looking at brain activity measured by imaging technology. 
The findings, published in the journal PLOS ONE, are important to emotion research because they bring “a new method with potential to identify emotions without relying on people’s ability to self-report,” study researcher Karim Kassam, an assistant professor of social and decision sciences at Carnegie Mellon University, said in a statement. “It could be used to assess an individual’s emotional response to almost any kind of stimulus, for example, a flag, a brand name or a political candidate.”
For the study, researchers used a combination of brain imaging — functional magnetic resonance imaging — and machine learning. They recruited 10 actors from the university’s drama school to act out different emotions, such as anger, happiness, pride and shame, while inside an fMRI scanner, for multiple times in random order. 
To make sure that researchers were able to measure the actual emotions and not just the acting out of emotions, they had the study participants also look at emotion-eliciting images while undergoing FMRI brain scans. 
“Despite manifest differences between people’s psychology, different people tend to neurally encode emotions in remarkably similar ways,” study researcher Amanda Markey, a graduate student in the Department of Social and Decision Sciences at the university, said in a statement. 
Earlier this year, researchers from the University of Colorado in Boulder found a way to distinguish between physical pain in the brain from emotional pain, TIME reported. Those findings were published in the New England Journal of Medicine.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 2, 2017)

welderguy said:


> Go back and re-read post #630-#633 of the "what is true" thread.(key word "string")



Yes! Great example Welder. Thank you for backing me up. I pointed out how you guys will connect dots that are not there and you have come through with a fine example of that,  especially after Richie connected the dots that led to another totally different "string".
Awesome example of a couple of believers that will latch on to anything out of sheer need.

Now get your Crayolas out and color in your completed picture.


----------



## welderguy (Mar 2, 2017)

bullethead said:


> Yes! Great example Welder. Thank you for backing me up. I pointed out how you guys will connect dots that are not there and you have come through with a fine example of that,  especially after Richie connected the dots that led to another totally different "string".
> Awesome example of a couple of believers that will latch on to anything out of sheer need.
> 
> Now get your Crayolas out and color in your completed picture.



It wouldn't matter if your mother in law came back from the dead, you still wouldn't believe. You do not possess the ability to believe.


----------



## WaltL1 (Mar 2, 2017)

welderguy said:


> It wouldn't matter if your mother in law came back from the dead, you still wouldn't believe. You do not possess the ability to believe.


I'm curious -
If a person did come back from the dead would you then believe in ALL the gods who are claimed to have the ability to do that?
Or just your god?


----------



## bullethead (Mar 2, 2017)

welderguy said:


> It wouldn't matter if your mother in law came back from the dead, you still wouldn't believe. You do not possess the ability to believe.



I require extraordinary evidence to back up extraordinary claims.

Richie gets the word "string" in his head because he KNEW I was going to ask for some proof. According to him that word came to him in prayer as he asked for something that I would connect to. 
So I ask, he gives the word "string".
It literally has no meaning or relevance to me so Richie now connects the string dots to a bookmarker in his wife's bible. Again NOTHING to do with me. A week later Welder's light bulb blinks because he is able to connect the word string to a guy that has been posting in here for years, which again has nothing to do with me....
You make up for my requirement for a  preponderance of evidence by your NEED and willingness to associate anything as a sign.

Hopefully he MIL visits and talks "string theory" with me tonight.  I'll let you know.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 2, 2017)

welderguy said:


> It wouldn't matter if your mother in law came back from the dead, you still wouldn't believe. You do not possess the ability to believe.



The ability is there. The NEED is not.


----------



## WaltL1 (Mar 2, 2017)

bullethead said:


> I require extraordinary evidence to back up extraordinary claims.
> 
> Richie gets the word "string" in his head because he KNEW I was going to ask for some proof. According to him that word came to him in prayer as he asked for something that I would connect to.
> So I ask, he gives the word "string".
> ...


I bet if String(music) is reading this thread he's thinking "how the heck did I get involved in this?" 

Hey wait a minute! String..... thread......


----------



## welderguy (Mar 2, 2017)

bullethead said:


> I require extraordinary evidence to back up extraordinary claims.
> 
> Richie gets the word "string" in his head because he KNEW I was going to ask for some proof. According to him that word came to him in prayer as he asked for something that I would connect to.
> So I ask, he gives the word "string".
> ...



Lol 
I knew this would get you stirred up. 

You take everything so serious.


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 2, 2017)

Gracious we had some excellent discussions back in the day.


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 2, 2017)

JB0704 said:


> Gracious we had some excellent discussions back in the day.



I was way more sarcastic back then.


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 2, 2017)

red neck richie said:


> You want to dismiss feeling as truth. But I feel love I feel anger I feel Hurt I feel pain. How do you prove they exist when you know you feel them? I'm not talking about a physical pain but an emotional pain That hurts your being.




http://forum.gon.com/showpost.php?p=10630753&postcount=803


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 2, 2017)

red neck richie said:


> Ambush do you feel Love? How do you know Love exists. I have no scientific proof I only know what I feel. I only Know what I witness. I only know what I experience. Because you don't understand it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I think you should stop listening to others and more to your heart.



More importantly, just because you don't understand it doesn't mean that it DOES exist.  Or less messily, If you don't understand something, you can't talk intelligently about whether or not it exists.  

A cool groove for Friday Eve:



"If you believe in things that you don't understand, then you suffer"


----------



## bullethead (Mar 2, 2017)

welderguy said:


> Lol
> I knew this would get you stirred up.
> 
> You take everything so serious.



It never ceases to amaze me at how less serious you become AFTER one of my rebuttals.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 2, 2017)

WaltL1 said:


> I bet if String(music) is reading this thread he's thinking "how the heck did I get involved in this?"
> 
> Hey wait a minute! String..... thread......



Some days I get so frustrated that I am ready to string someone up....oh geeze...Oh Boy....now I did it...


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 2, 2017)

WaltL1 said:


> I'm curious -
> If a person did come back from the dead would you then believe in ALL the gods who are claimed to have the ability to do that?
> Or just your god?




Imagine if Welder or Ritchie got a visit from a dead relative and that relative told them that Christ is a lie and that the REAL God is Zeus.  Would that be enough evidence Welder, Ritchie?


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 2, 2017)

ambush80 said:


> Imagine if Welder or Ritchie got a visit from a dead relative and that relative told them that Christ is a lie and that the REAL God is Zeus.  Would that be enough evidence Welder, Ritchie?



I think that would certainly be reason for a fella to reconsider one's position.  Of course, the dead relative could be holdin' a grudge, n spreading misdirection


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 2, 2017)

ambush80 said:


> I interpret Willard's argument to be that everything has to have a cause.......except the uncaused cause.  Is that what you think He's saying?  See this:
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down


Yes, that's what I believe he is saying. The logical conclusion is there has to be something that is uncaused. Do you come to a different conclusion?

And in the first argument, yes, it could be turtles all the way down






> "Everything has to have a beginning....except this ONE thing"  That's a contradiction.


That's an exception. It's right there after the ...






> Enjoy:
> 
> http://io9.gizmodo.com/the-7-most-intriguing-philosophical-arguments-for-the-e-1507393670
> 
> ...



Yes, I could give three examples.


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 2, 2017)

JB0704 said:


> Gracious we had some excellent discussions back in the day.



Ah the good ol days


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 2, 2017)

WaltL1 said:


> I bet if String(music) is reading this thread he's thinking "how the heck did I get involved in this?"
> 
> Hey wait a minute! String..... thread......



Lol, I try not to pay much attention to parts of the thread that move away from the OP. I'm like a tom turkey with a brood of hens.


----------



## welderguy (Mar 2, 2017)

JB0704 said:


> Gracious we had some excellent discussions back in the day.



Maybe y'all can have a kumbaya session on your camping/fishing trip and remember those good ole days before I showed up.


----------



## WaltL1 (Mar 2, 2017)

welderguy said:


> Maybe y'all can have a kumbaya session on your camping/fishing trip and remember those good ole days before I showed up.


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 2, 2017)

JB0704 said:


> I think that would certainly be reason for a fella to reconsider one's position.  Of course, the dead relative could be holdin' a grudge, n spreading misdirection



How would you know?  It would be a Scrooge Moment.


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 2, 2017)

stringmusic said:


> Yes, that's what I believe he is saying. The logical conclusion is there has to be something that is uncaused. Do you come to a different conclusion?



I have a different conclusion.  I conclude that I don't know.  It's the most logical answer to me.  I'll admit that the notion of a 'guy' is just as silly to me as a pile of turtles and that's why I don't go there.  (They're metaphysical turtles in an alternate plane.  Prove that they ain't.)

I think his logic falls apart when he talks about things we know (everything has a cause) and then he asserts something that he doesn't know about, something that he imagined (the uncaused cause).  It could be turtles all the way down forever.....until they get to the _Mack Daddy Turtle of All Times!!!_.  See. That's how one inserts a roadblock in the middle of the regression.  I believe it's called special pleading.  We all know that the believer doesn't REALLY need for their faith to be based in logic.  That's why it's faith.  We all agree on the definition.  Pity the believer who's faith hinges on Apologetic argument, no?  

For the non-believer, they need things to make logical sense as much as possible.  That's why Jefferson rewrote his version of the Bible.



stringmusic said:


> And in the first argument, yes, it could be turtles all the way down



Indeed.



stringmusic said:


> That's an exception. It's right there after the ...



That's the special pleading part.  I don't like rules personally, but if we're gonna have a logical argument I think we have to agree to some.  This one should stay.



stringmusic said:


> Yes, I could give three examples.



Yes, please!


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 2, 2017)

welderguy said:


> Maybe y'all can have a kumbaya session on your camping/fishing trip and remember those good ole days before I showed up.




We were withering away until you and Ritchie showed up.  Fresh meat.


----------

