The Argument from Truth

[Asmodean]

The military technical term for which is : Running like hell! 

...And for those of us without military affiliation, is called a "tactical retreat". 

[McQ]

Oh really? So, truth existed before there was physical life in the universe? Be careful now, don't fall into any traps!  

Yes. Things exist whether you're around to see them or not. Physical laws existed before humans, before all life.
And your premise is flawed so badly it doesn't hold up to even a moment's scrutiny.

Waste of time? Then why are you in here typing?

To demonstrate what a foolish thing you are arguing for, and to let you know that you aren't saying anything useful. Also to see if you can do better than to plug your ears and say, "Nahahahaha...ICAN'THEARYOU!", which is all you're doing now.

So, start over, without a failed premise. Otherwise you're just trolling. It's that obvious.

And here we go.

I'm doing my best to have a civil freaking discussion about the existence of God and all of the sudden, out of nowhere, a grand moderator appears and starts making an obvious black ball, straw man "trolling" accusation. I'm not trolling, and you know it. You just want to put an end to this discussion because you can't intellectually handle it and you see the principle of atheism beginning to weaken.

Here is what I said. And you know this is not the statement of a troll. But you go right ahead and ban me if that's what you feel you have to do to protect your forum.

So let me say that existence requires meaning. Because if you are the only conscious thing in a black infinite space, and floating next to you is a wooden block. If you disappear, if your consciousness is extinguished, the block of wood loses all meaning. But what that implies is that it becomes everything and nothing at the same time. It no longer is a block of wood. It is as much a pink elephant as it is a cat as it is a cup as it is a block of wood. It's essence is without definition. To say a thing can exist without definition is an absurd statement.

After you are gone, the block of wood can only remain in existence if there is an overarching consciousness to give it definition.

My claim is that was the state of the universe before there was physical life in it.

As for those who made concerted efforts to address this, I will address them in my blog. I will not reply anymore in this post just to prove to you that I am not trolling. I know the game. When the moderator starts getting nervous, it's best to just let things cool down. And that's what I'm going to do. Or I'll be banned, won't I?

I'd say that's a victory, McQ. Wouldn't you?

Oh man, quit your paranoid whining. Let's see, one more time, if you can deal with this. Listen carefully. Last time I will bother with this.

Your premise is wrong. The laws of nature exist without a living organism to experience them. That goes for all things that exist due to those laws. Like your block of wood. It doesn't require defining to exist. Period. Neither do a hydrogen atom, or gravity, or a photon.

From there, the rest of your argument is meaningless.

Got it so far?

You've still not figured out that you can't start from a faulty premise and build an argument around it. That is why I said this is a waste of time. And I've given you more of my time than I wish to already to get you to realize this. So what's your response? Here, in a nutshell:

Whine. Accuse the moderator, who has every right to post on this forum as any other member, of being uncivil, blackballing you, akin a straw man argument, and trying to ban you. Nowhere in my post did I do anything like that. Where is my warning to you?

I do say you're trolling though, because you respond the same way a troll does when confronted with something that invalidates your main argument. You ignore it, whine some more, and accuse me of not being able to handle your oh-so-brilliant argument. Jesus-fucking-christ-on-a-popsicle-stick, what a freaking millionaire I'd be if I had a dime for everyone like you who posted here.

Yeah, how does your victory feel?

[Sandra Craft]

You previously agreed with me that the existence or non-existence of God cannot be established by logical argument alone. So why are you attempting to do that?

I'm guessing it's because he thinks it's the only thing we'll respond to and he wants our heads for his mantle.  Personally, since there's obviously no way of proving the existence of a god based on the description of it (outside nature?  an unseen mover?  c'mon) all a believer can do is provide reasons why unbelievers should act as if their god exists.  As long as it isn't a reason that's been trotted out a million times before, I'm willing to listen to and consider that.

[Twentythree]

I do say you're trolling though, because you respond the same way a troll does when confronted with something that invalidates your main argument. You ignore it, whine some more, and accuse me of not being able to handle your oh-so-brilliant argument. Jesus-fucking-christ-on-a-popsicle-stick, what a freaking millionaire I'd be if I had a dime for everyone like you who posted here.

Yeah, how does your victory feel?

moderator or instigator?

[Ecurb Noselrub]

I'm guessing it's because he thinks it's the only thing we'll respond to and he wants our heads for his mantle.  Personally, since there's obviously no way of proving the existence of a god based on the description of it (outside nature?  an unseen mover?  c'mon) all a believer can do is provide reasons why unbelievers should act as if their god exists.  As long as it isn't a reason that's been trotted out a million times before, I'm willing to listen to and consider that.

For me, the only thing any believer has upon which to base his/her faith is his/her personal experience. If he/she has had some experience that creates faith, fine - that is the basis of his/her faith.  It can't convince anyone else, of course, but it can be shared, discussed and critiqued.  But there's no rational basis for any believer to insist that anyone else adopt their beliefs, morals or perspective.  They can run it up the flagpole and see if anyone salutes, but that's about the extent of it.

[Twentythree]

For me, the only thing any believer has upon which to base his/her faith is his/her personal experience.

I could not agree more!

I think as a community we need to treat these discussions with more gentility. I understand that there are numerous individuals that would post to this forum just to poke the tiger. The strength comes form not allowing these barbs to incite rudeness, narcissism or delusions of superiority. We are discussing something here that threatens someone's whole view of reality. It's hard for me to imagine how strange and scary it must be for many of these people of faith to come to a forum like this and have their entire world view challenged. For many of these people every decision they have ever made has been made under the pretence of their faith as it is through their faith that they view their place in the world and in the universe. For many believers the idea of atheism is analogous to Neo discovering his world is nothing more than a computer simulation. This has got to be terrifying and frustration and at times infuriating. Not everyone would be as brave as Neo and take the red pill. It is a hard truth we are trying to sell and I just feel that our cause may be better served by trying learn rather than trying to teach, and by offering a soft place to land rather than a bed of nails or den of lions. No one is open when they have their guard up.

[McQ]

I do say you're trolling though, because you respond the same way a troll does when confronted with something that invalidates your main argument. You ignore it, whine some more, and accuse me of not being able to handle your oh-so-brilliant argument. Jesus-fucking-christ-on-a-popsicle-stick, what a freaking millionaire I'd be if I had a dime for everyone like you who posted here.

Yeah, how does your victory feel?

moderator or instigator?

Weary of the same old tired arguments being trotted out as some amazing new truth. And how does my response count as instigating? I'm simply tired of this poster's finger-in-his-ears responses to the arguments against his points. Sometimes being matter-of-fact is all that is needed. Stick around a while. I get soft and cuddly too. 

[Twentythree]

It was calling him/her (I assume him) out, "Yeah, how does your victory feel?". That was what I saw as instigation but at that point the discussion had already dissolved, you cannot be blamed for that. I can understand how exhausting it must get. Especially with trolls and all, but I think it's important to acknowledge that persons of faith that post here are at the very least curious and that is a very small step in a positive direction. Some, granted, are curious for the wrong reasons but I feel that some may be curios for the right reasons. It is these individuals that we should work at cultivating and fostering and I think we as a group need to acknowledge that there will never be a logical answer for faith and demanding one will only drive a discussion into abstraction and circular argument. As I have stated before in other post I think that there is an evolutionary cause for deep and unwavering faith. In that regard we will never convince I think all we can hope to do is plant a small seed of doubt.

[McQ]

It was calling him/her (I assume him) out, "Yeah, how does your victory feel?". That was what I saw as instigation but at that point the discussion had already dissolved, you cannot be blamed for that. I can understand how exhausting it must get. Especially with trolls and all, but I think it's important to acknowledge that persons of faith that post here are at the very least curious and that is a very small step in a positive direction. Some, granted, are curious for the wrong reasons but I feel that some may be curios for the right reasons. It is these individuals that we should work at cultivating and fostering and I think we as a group need to acknowledge that there will never be a logical answer for faith and demanding one will only drive a discussion into abstraction and circular argument. As I have stated before in other post I think that there is an evolutionary cause for deep and unwavering faith. In that regard we will never convince I think all we can hope to do is plant a small seed of doubt.

You make some very good points here. I appreciate you taking the time to to do so. For every curmudgeonly, jaded cynic here (like, oh...me some unnamed person perhaps?  ) there needs to be a couple of patient, fostering types, willing to take the time to do what you suggest.

[Tank]

It was calling him/her (I assume him) out, "Yeah, how does your victory feel?". That was what I saw as instigation but at that point the discussion had already dissolved, you cannot be blamed for that. I can understand how exhausting it must get. Especially with trolls and all, but I think it's important to acknowledge that persons of faith that post here are at the very least curious and that is a very small step in a positive direction. Some, granted, are curious for the wrong reasons but I feel that some may be curios for the right reasons. It is these individuals that we should work at cultivating and fostering and I think we as a group need to acknowledge that there will never be a logical answer for faith and demanding one will only drive a discussion into abstraction and circular argument. As I have stated before in other post I think that there is an evolutionary cause for deep and unwavering faith. In that regard we will never convince I think all we can hope to do is plant a small seed of doubt.

Some just come here to preach, they don't last long.

[Egor]

Yes, a tactical retreat. Obviously, I'm not going to be able to discuss this topic any further without being banned. Whitney is threatening a ban as is McQ.

This is not uncommon for me. My posts, whatever group I'm in, are like nuclear fuel. They never stop heating up until the moderators have a meltdown.

But just so you know. I was capable of carrying this discussion much further--all the way to the truth, I believe--and would have liked to. But if I'm going to be called a troll, and if I'm going to be threatened with banning, then I got to quit, right?

See you later.

Ed


P.S., I was going to answer some of the replies in my blog, but I realized a post of that length would push all my other posts off the front page. So, I'll just give it a pass. If twenty-three or others wish to continue the discussion. By all means e-mail me.


E.

[McQ]

Yes, a tactical retreat. Obviously, I'm not going to be able to discuss this topic any further without being banned. Whitney is threatening a ban as is McQ.

Prove it. Show where I threatened to ban you.

If not, count yourself as a liar among other things. You accuse me falsely. Isn't there some kind of rule against that in christianity?

[Tank]

They can't e-mail you, your e-mail is set to private. Did you mean Private Message (PM) you?

[Stevil]

I can't see where you can prove that without consciousness there is no block of wood. It is a block of wood whether there is anyone to realise it or name it.
So many posts, so little progress. What ever happened to being clear and concise?

[Guardian85]

Yes, a tactical retreat. Obviously, I'm not going to be able to discuss this topic any further without being banned. Whitney is threatening a ban as is McQ.

This is not uncommon for me. My posts, whatever group I'm in, are like nuclear fuel. They never stop heating up until the moderators have a meltdown.

But just so you know. I was capable of carrying this discussion much further--all the way to the truth, I believe--and would have liked to. But if I'm going to be called a troll, and if I'm going to be threatened with banning, then I got to quit, right?

See you later.

Ed

When was he treatened with a beasting from the ban stick? Can't remember reading about that...  ???

Of course, if he's just being a whiney little <censored> it would explain a lot.