There must be an over-arching consciousness in the universe responsible for truth.
Consider this:
1. Truth is the knowledge of reality.
2. Knowledge is an attribute of consciousness.
3. Things were true before there was physical life in the universe.
4. Therefore, consciousness must have existed before there was any physical life in the universe.
5. That preexisting consciousness we call God.
Let's get ready to rumble! :o
Quote from: Egor on December 27, 2011, 07:44:46 AM
There must be an over-arching consciousness in the universe responsible for truth.
Consider this:
1. Truth is the knowledge of reality.
2. Knowledge is an attribute of consciousness.
3. Things were true before there was physical life in the universe.
I agree with your first two propositions. I would replace your third with these:
3. Consciousness is an attribute of life.
4. Logical conclusion: Before life there was no truth.
Quote from: Egor on December 27, 2011, 07:44:46 AM
There must be an over-arching consciousness in the universe responsible for truth.
Consider this:
1. Truth is the knowledge of reality.
2. Knowledge is an attribute of consciousness.
3. Things were true before there was physical life in the universe.
4. Therefore, consciousness must have existed before there was any physical life in the universe.
5. That preexisting consciousness we call God.
Let's get ready to rumble! :o
WTF!
Please present evidence supporting point 3.
Yup, that's where it goes wobbly.
Let's get ready to rumble??? Nothing to rumble over.
More like we're watching you tumble...stumble...bumble...over item 3.
Quote from: Egor on December 27, 2011, 07:44:46 AM
There must be an over-arching consciousness in the universe responsible for truth.
Consider this:
1. Truth is the knowledge of reality.
2. Knowledge is an attribute of consciousness.
3. Things were true before there was physical life in the universe.
4. Therefore, consciousness must have existed before there was any physical life in the universe.
5. That preexisting consciousness we call God.
Let's get ready to rumble! :o
Present peer reviewed scientific papers from reputable sources to support assertion 3 or conceed your failure.
Another example of an absolutly shite argument that means absolutly nothing.
Quote from: Tank
Present peer reviewed scientific papers from reputable sources to support assertion 3 or conceed your failure.
Another example of an absolutly shite argument that means absolutly nothing.
and THAT'S the truth!!...*chucklin*
Is this another ham-fisted attempt to equate truth and Truth?
1, 2,
Where's 3?
Non sequitur.
Also, what kind of knowledge are you talking about? Justified knowledge? Belief?
Epistemology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology)
This is going to need to get way more sophisticated...
Quote from: Egor on December 27, 2011, 07:44:46 AM
3. Things were true before there was physical life in the universe.
As has been pointed out, this is an unsupported assumption and amounts to boot-strapping. You are assuming the very point in issue - that there was some form of life that pre-existed the universe. Also, if by definition you equate truth with knowledge, then you are essentially attempting to win your argument by definitions.
Quote from: Egor on December 27, 2011, 07:44:46 AM
There must be an over-arching consciousness in the universe responsible for truth.
Not really.
Quote1. Truth is the knowledge of reality.
Fair enough, but consider that perception of reality is subjective.
Quote2. Knowledge is an attribute of consciousness.
I'd call it a function of the brain, but yes.
Quote3. Things were true before there was physical life in the universe.
No. Matter and energy did behave in certain ways prior to intelligent (And I use that term VERY loosely) life, but as there were no creatures posessing knowledge of their surroundings, there were no truths.
Quote4. Therefore, consciousness must have existed before there was any physical life in the universe.
Functions of the nervous system did not exist prior to the system itself. Both consciousness and percieved truths are such functions. Is getting two parts of water for every two parts of hydrogen(g), burned in one part of oxygen(g) a truth? No, it's a result of a process. "Truth" is only relevant when trying to explain and understand this process as an intelligent being. Thus, "truth" relates to the correctness of a creature's understanding and not to the actual process.
Quote5. That preexisting consciousness we call God.
This list does not in any way demonstrate the need for "pre-existing consciousness"
Quote from: Egor on December 27, 2011, 07:44:46 AM
There must be an over-arching consciousness in the universe responsible for truth.
Consider this:
1. Truth is the knowledge of reality.
2. Knowledge is an attribute of consciousness.
3. Things were true before there was physical life in the universe.
4. Therefore, consciousness must have existed before there was any physical life in the universe.
5. That preexisting consciousness we call God.
Let's get ready to rumble! :o
Egor,
You're arguments are weak - especially starting from argument Number #2! I mean..can you prove that having "consciousness" is enough to "knowledge": the correct identification of reality? I don;t think so!
Try again and think really hard.
Happy
Until you are able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that you posess knowledge of what must have been before the big bang (Nobel prize material, right there!) you are not in a position to argue that something must have existed before TBB.
Fooling around with the definitions of words (again) is not evidence of your god, or any other. ::)
"Archaeology is the search for fact... not truth. If it's truth you're looking for, Dr. Tyree's philosophy class is right down the hall."
Considering the argument the OP gives concerns truth, it's not a scientific argument anyway. Truth is philosophy, not science. One person's truth may be vastly different from another's. There was no truth before life, since truth is a concept that comes from living things. There were, however, facts.
Quote from: fester30 on December 27, 2011, 05:44:58 PM
"Archaeology is the search for fact... not truth. If it's truth you're looking for, Dr. Tyree's philosophy class is right down the hall."
Considering the argument the OP gives concerns truth, it's not a scientific argument anyway. Truth is philosophy, not science. One person's truth may be vastly different from another's. There was no truth before life, since truth is a concept that comes from living things. There were, however, facts.
Pretty much what The Asmo said, only this is in a neater package, so a +1 from me.
However, I wouldn't even say facts existed, since facts are also constructs of understanding. There were processes and interactions and their results.
Quote from: Pharaoh Cat on December 27, 2011, 09:37:35 AM
I agree with your first two propositions. I would replace your third with these:
3. Consciousness is an attribute of life.
4. Logical conclusion: Before life there was no truth.
And thats pretty much what I thought an atheist would say, is that before any physical life existed, there was no truth. And it seems to be the major complaint of most of the atheists who have responded, that the argument falls apart at #3, so we will start from there.
Quote from: Stevil on December 27, 2011, 09:45:17 AM
WTF!
Please present evidence supporting point 3.
Thats where were going to start.
Quote from: Tank on December 27, 2011, 12:53:36 PM
Present peer reviewed scientific papers from reputable sources to support assertion 3 or conceed your failure.
Another example of an absolutly shite argument that means absolutly nothing.
Peer reviewed? What are you talking about? This isnt an article for Science Magazine. This is a thought experiment. If God exists, he must exist outside of the physical dimensions of time and space which began and are contained within the physical universe. So, if he exists, he is not going to be proven scientificallyyou do see that dont you. Science deals with things in the physical universe. You do see that if he exists, and if you persist in trying to prove his existence scientifically that you will never be able to do it. Or should I be arguing with someone else?
So, peer reviewed, by whom?
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on December 27, 2011, 03:25:33 PM
Quote from: Egor on December 27, 2011, 07:44:46 AM
3. Things were true before there was physical life in the universe.
As has been pointed out, this is an unsupported assumption and amounts to boot-strapping. You are assuming the very point in issue - that there was some form of life that pre-existed the universe. Also, if by definition you equate truth with knowledge, then you are essentially attempting to win your argument by definitions.
So, I need to prove point #3.
Quote from: Asmodean on December 27, 2011, 04:18:21 PM
No. Matter and energy did behave in certain ways prior to intelligent (And I use that term VERY loosely) life, but as there were no creatures posessing knowledge of their surroundings, there were no truths.
So, you are saying that God did not exist. I thought atheists these days never made such statements of faith. You do realize you are making an absolutely unsubstantiated claim.
Quote from: Guardian85 on December 27, 2011, 05:38:52 PM
Until you are able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that you posess knowledge of what must have been before the big bang (Nobel prize material, right there!) you are not in a position to argue that something must have existed before TBB.
Fooling around with the definitions of words (again) is not evidence of your god, or any other. ::)
Youre quoting the classic case for Atheistic Ignorance. There had to be something before, but we cant know it, so stop even trying to guess at it. Just be ignorant and live as if there were no God.
And you cant see the satanic deception in that kind of thinking? The inherent deception designed to keep you looking down instead of up? You are embracing ignorance.
----------
Okay, so lets look at the argument again:
1. Truth is the knowledge of reality. (theres enough agreement on that)
2. Knowledge is an attribute of consciousness. (theres enough agreement on that)
3. Things were true before there was physical life in the universe. (total disagreement)
4. Therefore, consciousness must have existed before there was any physical life in the universe. (would follow only if #3 were a fact)
5. That preexisting consciousness we call God. (this is the conclusion and hopefully most people would agree that a preexisting consciousness would fit with the assumption of Gods existence)
The greatest contention seems to be that since truth is knowledge of reality that #3 is assuming the conclusion. There was only potential for truth before there was life in the universe, there wasnt actually truth. There was reality, but there was no knowledge of reality.
But wait a minute: Are you telling me that things were real before there was physical life in the universe?
Anyone care to comment? ???
Quote from: Egor on December 27, 2011, 08:52:10 PM
Quote from: Asmodean on December 27, 2011, 04:18:21 PM
No. Matter and energy did behave in certain ways prior to intelligent (And I use that term VERY loosely) life, but as there were no creatures posessing knowledge of their surroundings, there were no truths.
So, you are saying that God did not exist. I thought atheists these days never made such statements of faith. You do realize you are making an absolutely unsubstantiated claim.
I'm saying that,
Quote from: Asmodean on December 27, 2011, 04:18:21 PM
No. Matter and energy did behave in certain ways prior to intelligent (And I use that term VERY loosely) life, but as there were no creatures posessing knowledge of their surroundings, there were no truths.
Egor, no matter which way you slice and dice, no argument for the existence of God/s has stood up. All have been debunked. So before you start all your arguments for/of truth, or any other argument you simply must show evidence of the god and that it did indeed do what you claim it did/does. The bad part is that you can't provide that evidence.
Quote from: Egor on December 27, 2011, 08:52:10 PM
Anyone care to comment? ???
Can you please present your proof of point 3?
He keeps refuting the need for "proof". Don't you see, we're all just supposed to take his word for it!
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on December 27, 2011, 09:41:49 PM
He keeps refuting the need for "proof". Don't you see, we're all just supposed to take his word for it!
I wouldn't take the word of a second hand car salesman in exactly the same way I wouldn't take the word of Edward, far too much vested interest in the outcome ;D
Quote from: Tank on December 27, 2011, 12:53:36 PMAnother example of an absolutly shite argument that means absolutly nothing.
This pretty much encapsulates everything Egor has posted since Day 1. Talking to him is pointless. His threads should be locked upon posting to represent how closed his mind is to logic and reason. ::)
Quote from: Egor on December 27, 2011, 08:52:10 PM
But wait a minute: Are you telling me that things were real before there was physical life in the universe?
Anyone care to comment? ???
I'll bite. Yes, things were real before there was physical life in the universe. Reality is not contingent upon the existence of physical life. If something exists, it is real. Non-living things existed before living things, unless you have some alternate definition of "life" that you are now going to spring on me.
Quote from: Egor on December 27, 2011, 08:52:10 PM
But wait a minute: Are you telling me that things were real before there was physical life in the universe?
Anyone care to comment? ???
Point 3 was about truth prior to life, with truth having been defined as an attribute of consciousness.
How does this tie into things being real before there was physical life?
Please connect the dots, they are currently too far apart for me.
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on December 27, 2011, 09:41:49 PM
He keeps refuting the need for "proof". Don't you see, we're all just supposed to take his word for it!
That is precisely how I read Egor.
Quote from: Egor on December 27, 2011, 08:52:10 PM
blabla unsubstantiated bla...
I'm saying that,
Quote from: Asmodean on December 27, 2011, 04:18:21 PM
No. Matter and energy did behave in certain ways prior to intelligent (And I use that term VERY loosely) life, but as there were no creatures posessing knowledge of their surroundings, there were no truths.
Oh! and if you READ what I DID say, rather than attempt to put words in my mouth, you will find that nothing there is unsubstantiated - matter and energy DID exist prior to life, and so they DID behave in certain ways. Truth is, as you yourself put it, "knowledge of reality", so prior to organisms capable of knowledge, there couldn't have been any.
Quote from: Egor on December 27, 2011, 08:52:10 PM
blabla unsubstantiated bla...
That made me laugh...really hard...
Quote from: Asmodean on December 27, 2011, 06:22:51 PM
Quote from: fester30 on December 27, 2011, 05:44:58 PM
"Archaeology is the search for fact... not truth. If it's truth you're looking for, Dr. Tyree's philosophy class is right down the hall."
Considering the argument the OP gives concerns truth, it's not a scientific argument anyway. Truth is philosophy, not science. One person's truth may be vastly different from another's. There was no truth before life, since truth is a concept that comes from living things. There were, however, facts.
Pretty much what The Asmo said, only this is in a neater package, so a +1 from me.
This is why I was so impressed that many people got all the way to #3 before objecting. #1 was a stumbling block for me.
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on December 28, 2011, 05:00:56 AM
This is why I was so impressed that many people got all the way to #3 before objecting. #1 was a stumbling block for me.
#1 just defines truth in the setting of the argument. It only turns into a stumbling block once you do get to #3, unless you object the definition, which I didn't bother to do.
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on December 28, 2011, 05:00:56 AM
Quote from: fester30 on December 27, 2011, 05:44:58 PM
Truth is philosophy, not science.
This is why I was so impressed that many people got all the way to #3 before objecting. #1 was a stumbling block for me.
I'm sitting on a chair, typing. Unless I'm deceived or deceiving, it's true that I'm sitting on a chair, typing. Any statement by anyone who is neither deceived nor deceiving is true because it conveys knowledge of reality. Philosophers have raised the question of whether it is possible at all to be undeceived, or possible at all to be undeceiving, but the rest of us go about our business without bothering about such idle speculations because no other course of action would be practical. Slap me in the face and then ask me if it's true that you slapped me in the face. If I say "No" or "Maybe not," slap me again, because I deserve it. ;)
None of that negates the utter fallacy of Egor's OP or follow-up. Without a speaker or at least a thinker, there is no statement, and without a statement, there is no possibility of truth or falsehood, so before we can claim the existence of truth, we must establish the existence of a speaker or at least a thinker.
Quote from: Pharaoh Cat on December 28, 2011, 05:58:49 AM
None of that negates the utter fallacy of Egor's OP or follow-up. Without a speaker or at least a thinker, there is no statement, and without a statement, there is no possibility of truth or falsehood, so before we can claim the existence of truth, we must establish the existence of a speaker or at least a thinker.
That's true. There has to be a mind for something to be either true or false. If there was no mind in the universe before physical life, then there was no truth. But things were either real or not real.
Quote from: Stevil on December 27, 2011, 11:34:38 PM
Point 3 was about truth prior to life, with truth having been defined as an attribute of consciousness.
How does this tie into things being real before there was physical life?
Please connect the dots, they are currently too far apart for me.
That's what I hope to do. So stay tuned.
Quote from: Asmodean on December 28, 2011, 12:07:42 AM
so prior to organisms capable of knowledge, there couldn't have been any. [truth]
I agree.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on December 27, 2011, 10:01:47 PM
I'll bite. Yes, things were real before there was physical life in the universe. Reality is not contingent upon the existence of physical life. If something exists, it is real. Non-living things existed before living things, unless you have some alternate definition of "life" that you are now going to spring on me.
Reality is a conscious phenomenon. And not just the knowledge of reality (that's what we call truth) but reality itself.
Take away all consciousness and reality loses meaning. It becomes a statement of faith, and faith is a conscious phenomenon, too.
Try a thought experiment: Imagine you are the only conscious being in the universe. Everyone else seems conscious, but they're not, they just act that way. There is no God, and no afterlife, and only you are truly observing other things with a mind. Everyone else is just behaving according to their inputs—like a computer.
What happens to the universe when you die? If you're still thinking about it, you aren't dead enough. Imagine you are not imagining the universe, and you were the only thing that was conscious. Even if you say it still exists, it exists without any meaning at all. It has no reality, because it's not real to anything.
In order to have reality, you have to have consciousness.
So, are we saying that before there was physical life in the universe, the universe wasn't real? "Real" is, after all, a judgment call.
Now, of course, my point is that the universe was real, because God was conscious and giving it reality.
But, I'll even go one step further and play Devil's Advocate: We got rid of truth because it implied consciousness, and we can't have that. I suppose we could toss out meaning as well, and maybe even say that reality is unnecessary. Instead we can talk about plain old existence.
Because there was no consciousness, there was no reality, no truth, no meaning,
but there was existence, yes?
Is existence then independent of mind?
What do you think?
Quote from: Egor on December 28, 2011, 07:48:21 AM
Quote from: Pharaoh Cat on December 28, 2011, 05:58:49 AM
None of that negates the utter fallacy of Egor's OP or follow-up. Without a speaker or at least a thinker, there is no statement, and without a statement, there is no possibility of truth or falsehood, so before we can claim the existence of truth, we must establish the existence of a speaker or at least a thinker.
That's true. There has to be a mind for something to be either true or false. If there was no mind in the universe before physical life, then there was no truth. But things were either real or not real.
So what you're saying there is that God either has no mind or he didn't exist until somebody thought him up. Excellent Edward you've got it!
I find it so darn cute how Christians having failed for so long to offer any real proof for god are left with only these abstract philosophical arguments. I'm reminded of the old saying "if you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit".
If god is real offer some real proof. If god is simply an abstract philosophical concept then please continue to try and bullshit us into believing in your god.
Quote from: Egor on December 28, 2011, 07:48:21 AM
What happens to the universe when you die?
The ecosystem is immediately relieved of the burden of my existence.
Quote from: Egor on December 28, 2011, 07:48:21 AM
So, are we saying that before there was physical life in the universe, the universe wasn't real?
No. We're saying it wasn't perceived.
Reality can be divided into the objective and the subjective. Subjective reality requires a perceiving subject. Objective reality doesn't. Before the subjective emerged, the objective had already been. If the subjective is ever extinguished everywhere, the objective will probably still continue, and eventually the subjective may emerge once again.
Meaning is a subjective phenomenon. Objective reality has no meaning and needs none. Before the subjective emerged, all was meaningless. If the subjective is ever extinguished everywhere, all will again be meaningless. Today, because there is subjectivity, there is meaning, but that meaning does not impinge on the objective, nor does the objective lack anything it needs by lacking meaning. Objective reality gets along just fine being meaningless.
I thought (1) was dubiously worded.
"Truth is the knowledge of reality. "
I'm OK with correspondence with reality.
What's knowledge got to do with it.
If you have knowledge of truth you should be able to recognise it.
I've seen things that start out like this and you concede a small point for the sake of the game and then they draw you into their circles. I don't don't think Egor is up to this but I'm not conceding anything.
Threes OK, things corresponded with reality before life, what else were they going to do, there was no one to misinterpret.
I could let two and three go and say four is crap.
"Therefore, consciousness must have existed before there was any physical life in the universe."
I'm sticking with truth corresponding with reality, only after their was life could ideas be formed that didn't conform with reality.
Quote from: Egor on December 28, 2011, 07:48:21 AM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on December 27, 2011, 10:01:47 PM
I'll bite. Yes, things were real before there was physical life in the universe. Reality is not contingent upon the existence of physical life. If something exists, it is real. Non-living things existed before living things, unless you have some alternate definition of "life" that you are now going to spring on me.
Reality is a conscious phenomenon. And not just the knowledge of reality (that's what we call truth) but reality itself.
There you go again, trying to win an argument with definitions. I'll accept you idea that truth is a conscious phenomenon, but not reality. Something is real if it exists. Perception of it does not detract from its existence. The idea of "reality" may require consciousness, because it is an idea. But looking at the existence of things, it is obvious that some things existed (i.e.: were "real") before humans came along to perceive them and formulate ideas about them. Something being "real" and something being "meaningful" are two different things. You are mixing apples and oranges, and trying to define your way to victory.
Quote from: Egor on December 27, 2011, 08:52:10 PM
Quote from: Guardian85 on December 27, 2011, 05:38:52 PM
Until you are able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that you posess knowledge of what must have been before the big bang (Nobel prize material, right there!) you are not in a position to argue that something must have existed before TBB.
Fooling around with the definitions of words (again) is not evidence of your god, or any other. ::)
You're quoting the classic case for Atheistic Ignorance. There had to be something before, but we can't know it, so stop even trying to guess at it. Just be ignorant and live as if there were no God.
And you can't see the satanic deception in that kind of thinking? The inherent deception designed to keep you looking down instead of up? You are embracing ignorance.
Embracing ignorance? The arrogance you radiate is nauseating.
I am arguing that you should try to find the facts BEFORE drawing the conclusion(as scientists around the world are endavoring to do). I embrace ignorance only in the sense that objective understanding and knowledge can only come from a starting point of ignorance. You on the other hand seem to think that just because you can define something into existence, it has as much objective truth value as something that can be proven.
The ignorant one here is you for you are the one who has stopped looking for the truth.
oh great...another semantics "proof" that involves throwing the dictionary out the window :-\
Quote from: Whitney on December 28, 2011, 03:05:52 PM
oh great...another semantics "proof" that involves throwing the dictionary out the window :-\
It keeps him entertained and off the street. :D
Quote from: Tank on December 28, 2011, 03:08:51 PM
Quote from: Whitney on December 28, 2011, 03:05:52 PM
oh great...another semantics "proof" that involves throwing the dictionary out the window :-\
It keeps him entertained and off the street. :D
Keeps The Asmo entertained and off the streets too... For what it's worth :D
Quote from: Asmodean on December 28, 2011, 03:11:19 PM
Quote from: Tank on December 28, 2011, 03:08:51 PM
Quote from: Whitney on December 28, 2011, 03:05:52 PM
oh great...another semantics "proof" that involves throwing the dictionary out the window :-\
It keeps him entertained and off the street. :D
Keeps The Asmo entertained and off the streets too... For what it's worth :D
The only true merit to these discussions: entertainment, and the fact that they keep Asmo busy...
Quote from: Asmodean on December 28, 2011, 03:11:19 PM
Quote from: Tank on December 28, 2011, 03:08:51 PM
Quote from: Whitney on December 28, 2011, 03:05:52 PM
oh great...another semantics "proof" that involves throwing the dictionary out the window :-\
It keeps him entertained and off the street. :D
Keeps The Asmo entertained and off the streets too... For what it's worth :D
My plan is working!
Quote from: Tank on December 28, 2011, 03:20:18 PM
My plan is working!
Ah, but you see, The Asmo and his Minions, they is on to you now! They have no plan yet, but they will. And before then, they will stay off the streets and
pretend to be sitting on their gray butts doing nothing. Yes, yes... A good plan... Eh... ??? Where was I?!
Quote from: Asmodean on December 28, 2011, 04:31:47 PMWhere was I?!
Making me a large cup of tea, milk, 1.5 sugars as we agreed previously.
I've little to add that hasn't already been said.
Quote from: EgorYou are embracing ignorance.
You do not remove ignorance by simply denying that you have it. I'm sure that Guardian does embrace his ignorance, in the sense that he hasn't pretended to know anything that he doesn't.
Scio me nihil scire. We accept our ignorance and have a healthy awareness of our own limitations. And your branding that "Atheistic" is also false - I've spoken to Christians who have referred to the same thing, the contemplation of unknowing, as a source of great awe and catharsis, and as being at the core of all genuine religious feeling.
Is the idea of cosmic ignorance simply frightening to you? Is that why you want there to be a God? If so, then I posit to you that your belief is insincere, and that you are an atheist in denial.
Well, you lost me at #1. Truth is not necessarily the knowledge of reality. Truth simply is reality. Knowledge has nothing to do with it. Even your opening sentence is a presupposed bit of hogwash.
What a waste of time. Can't be bothered to argue with these made up bits of nonsense - not when your premise itself fails. Try again when you have something worth spending time on.
Quote from: Egor on December 28, 2011, 07:48:21 AM
Quote from: Stevil on December 27, 2011, 11:34:38 PM
Point 3 was about truth prior to life, with truth having been defined as an attribute of consciousness.
How does this tie into things being real before there was physical life?
Please connect the dots, they are currently too far apart for me.
That's what I hope to do. So stay tuned.
... and so I wait....
This gift of enlightenment you offer me is like watching paint dry.
I'm pretty sure that the end result isn't going to look any different to the begining position, and it takes so very, very long to get there.
And when we are there, will I be able to recognise that we are there, at the end. At least paint doesn't take longer than two days to dry.
...but here I am...
...waiting...
...waiting...
...but wait...
...there's more...
Quote from: Tank on December 28, 2011, 08:32:43 AM
So what you're saying there is that God either has no mind or he didn't exist until somebody thought him up. Excellent Edward you've got it!
No. Once we agree that there had to be an overarching consciousness to make anything real, we then have to look at arguments like the cosmological argument. That is the idea that there has to be an uncaused, eternal cause of all things.
Quote from: Pharaoh Cat on December 28, 2011, 09:11:23 AM
No. We're saying it wasn't perceived.
Reality can be divided into the objective and the subjective. Subjective reality requires a perceiving subject. Objective reality doesn't. Before the subjective emerged, the objective had already been. Meaning is a subjective phenomenon. Objective reality has no meaning and needs none. Before the subjective emerged, all was meaningless. If the subjective is ever extinguished everywhere, all will again be meaningless. Today, because there is subjectivity, there is meaning, but that meaning does not impinge on the objective, nor does the objective lack anything it needs by lacking meaning. Objective reality gets along just fine being meaningless.
What you just described (and by the way, you did a very good job of it.) is faith-based magical thinking. But that doesn't mean it doesn't make sense or isn't true. Just calling it magical thinking is not a sufficient rebuttal, and I know that. But just keep in mind that any counter I make, you will always be able to come back and say, in essence, "Nope. It is the way it is and that's it," offering absolutely no proof or even a logical thought experiment to support your assertion.
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.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on December 28, 2011, 02:56:45 PM
There you go again, trying to win an argument with definitions. I'll accept you idea that truth is a conscious phenomenon, but not reality. Something is real if it exists. Perception of it does not detract from its existence. The idea of "reality" may require consciousness, because it is an idea. But looking at the existence of things, it is obvious that some things existed (i.e.: were "real") before humans came along to perceive them and formulate ideas about them. Something being "real" and something being "meaningful" are two different things. You are mixing apples and oranges, and trying to define your way to victory.
Consider what I said above about existence. Explain to me what a block of wood is that is alone in a hypothetical black void. At this point, you are claiming that it exists without definition. But that's not existence.
Quote from: Guardian85 on December 28, 2011, 03:00:19 PM
Embracing ignorance? The arrogance you radiate is nauseating.
But I'm born again through faith. I would say my arrogance is justified. I am, after all, part of the royal court of God. I mean that's a fact.
QuoteI am arguing that you should try to find the facts BEFORE drawing the conclusion(as scientists around the world are endavoring to do).
Praise be to scientists—especially the one who made H5N1 airborne just to see if he could!
Quote from: Whitney on December 28, 2011, 03:05:52 PM
oh great...another semantics "proof" that involves throwing the dictionary out the window :-\
It's not a semantics proof. If logically things can't be real without observation, and obviously the universe existed before there was physical life in it, then that implies a consciousness that existed without physical life. That would most accurately be called God.
Quote from: Melmoth on December 28, 2011, 06:03:30 PM
And your branding that "Atheistic" is also false - I've spoken to Christians who have referred to the same thing, the contemplation of unknowing, as a source of great awe and catharsis, and as being at the core of all genuine religious feeling.
Is the idea of cosmic ignorance simply frightening to you? Is that why you want there to be a God? If so, then I posit to you that your belief is insincere, and that you are an atheist in denial.
I couldn't escape my belief in God if I wanted to. And at times, I have wanted to. But that would be insanity. And just shutting my eyes as atheists do, does not make God go away.
Quote from: McQ on December 28, 2011, 06:22:15 PM
Well, you lost me at #1. Truth is not necessarily the knowledge of reality. Truth simply is reality. Knowledge has nothing to do with it. Even your opening sentence is a presupposed bit of hogwash.
Oh really? So, truth existed before there was physical life in the universe? Be careful now, don't fall into any traps! :-X
QuoteWhat a waste of time. Can't be bothered to argue with these made up bits of nonsense - not when your premise itself fails. Try again when you have something worth spending time on.
Waste of time? Then why are you in here typing?
Two more posts from Egor,
but I find myself still waiting
Quote from: Egor on December 28, 2011, 09:25:33 PM
If logically things can't be real without observation, and obviously the universe existed before there was physical life in it,
How is the bolded part logical?
The logical position is that one can't claim to know that something is real until it is observed...
The illogical position would be claiming that something does not exist unless it is seen...lots of things existed before they were discovered.
But I see what you are trying to do here...turn the skeptic's requirement of proof against them; but it's not working since you are building a strawman.
Quote from: Egor on December 28, 2011, 09:25:33 PM
But I'm born again through faith. I would say my arrogance is justified. I am, after all, part of the royal court of God. I mean that's a fact.
Oh look! We have a monarchist here!
Royal court my ass! If your god did exist, he'd flush you down the drain with the rest of them assholes for people like me to torture in hell for all eternity. Royals have been known to do that to their parents, kids and siblings... What makes you think your lord and master would not toss you where the sun never shines?
Quote from: Egor on December 28, 2011, 09:25:33 PM
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.
I can see what you are saying here. It sounds as if you are trying to describe an observer based reality. With no observer reality itself becomes undefined. We only understand reality as we are able to perceive it. Without the presence of an observer all notions of reality cease to exist. So if I'm not mistaken, your position is that the observer is god. Therefore reality can continue to exist even without a sentient observer. I find this line of thought intriguing. Not to the extent that I believe that god is holding reality in place by being the alpha observer. But the fact that reality ceases to be clearly defined with the lack of an observer. Reality as we define it now has everything to do with how we perceive it. Every record, fact and theory is based on what we can see calculate or imagine. So did reality exist before the sentient observer. It's hard to say, thinking from a quantum perspective (as far as I am capable to) we may even be able to imagine that reality simultaneously existed and did not exist and only snapped into perceived existence with the introduction of a sentient observer. This is all well above my pay grade clearly but lines of discussion like this are valuable to the forum and I feel should be met with a bit more openness. You are clearly educated but have allowed yourself to slip into defending your arguments with barbs and quips. I hope you will expound upon this idea and offer a bit more clarity as to why you feel that reality is and or has to be held in place by a non material observer like god. I would also imagine that it is not your goal to have discussion disintegrate into argument. Especially over things such as the nature of reality. A topic I fell that no one is overtly capable of fully defending as no one knows for certain the true nature of reality. As atheists we know only so much as we can learn from scientific postulation. As a theist you understand the nature of reality as it has been given to you within the realm of your personal relationship with god. To these ends we should be eager to hear and experience one another's viewpoints its so hard to be honest when we are being defensive. So thank you for your openness and participation. Unless of course you are a troll in which case get the hell off my lawn!
Quote from: Egor on December 28, 2011, 09:25:33 PM
What you just described (and by the way, you did a very good job of it.) is faith-based magical thinking. But that doesn't mean it doesn't make sense or isn't true. Just calling it magical thinking is not a sufficient rebuttal, and I know that. But just keep in mind that any counter I make, you will always be able to come back and say, in essence, "Nope. It is the way it is and that's it," offering absolutely no proof or even a logical thought experiment to support your assertion.
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.
Primo: You are one to talk about faith-based magical thinking! PharaohCat made a valid point in regards to the definition of truth in your assertion of the nature of truth, and your rebuttal is simply to label it magical thinking? Are you smelling the irony of you of all people here using that argument? :-\
Secundo: Your argument that something requires meaning to exist and doesn't really exist until someone observes it sounds like the old philosophy thought experiment: "If a tree falls in the forest and nobody is around to hear it, does it still make a sound?"
It does make a sound. And the log floaing in the water is still going to be a log floating in the water, with all the characteristics of a log floating in the water, even if there are no one around to define it as such. The human definition of the thing is not important to the existence of the thing.Or are you asserting that as soon as nobody is watching it, it would magically disintegrate, and vanish from the universe?
Quote from: Egor on December 28, 2011, 09:25:33 PMThat is the idea that there has to be an uncaused, eternal cause of all things.
Ye that's why I think those who worship god the creator are wasting their time.
I don't waste my time worshipping god the god creator either, I worship god the god creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator ...........
Quote from: The Magic Pudding on December 29, 2011, 03:31:59 AM
Quote from: Egor on December 28, 2011, 09:25:33 PMThat is the idea that there has to be an uncaused, eternal cause of all things.
Ye that's why I think those who worship god the creator are wasting their time.
I don't waste my time worshipping god the god creator either, I worship god the god creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator ...........
*Ctrl - Alt - Del* :o
I wonder how many believers would agree with Egor's arguments, not to win a debate, but because those arguments seem valid to those believers. If so, there's a clue here as to believer psychology.
Most atheists assume molecules can exist without minds, but not minds without molecules.
Egor's arguments, by contrast, assume minds can exist without molecules, but not molecules without minds.
Minds without molecules are ghosts, precisely the form of being expected by most of those who anticipate surviving death, so we know these folks would agree with the minds without molecules proposition. Would they also agree that there can be no molecules without minds?
The third option is, minds and molecules are mutually independent, so that minds without molecules could exist, and molecules without minds also could. This is what I thought most believers assumed. Could I be wrong? Are Egor's arguments representative of common believer psychology?
Quote from: Pharaoh Cat on December 29, 2011, 04:06:32 AMAre Egor's arguments representative of common believer psychology?
Egor's comments are representative of someone not taking his meds.
Quote from: Egor on December 28, 2011, 09:29:44 PM
Oh really? So, truth existed before there was physical life in the universe? Be careful now, don't fall into any traps! :-X
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.
Quote from: Egor on December 28, 2011, 09:29:44 PM
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.
Quote from: MadBomr101 on December 29, 2011, 04:39:25 AM
Egor's comments are representative of someone not taking his meds.
Not necessarily, this may be medicated Egor.
Quote from: The Magic Pudding on December 29, 2011, 05:00:31 AM
Quote from: MadBomr101 on December 29, 2011, 04:39:25 AM
Egor's comments are representative of someone not taking his meds.
Not necessarily, this may be medicated Egor.
hmmmm, Point taken. It could go either way.
Quote from: MadBomr101 on December 29, 2011, 04:39:25 AM
Quote from: Pharaoh Cat on December 29, 2011, 04:06:32 AMAre Egor's arguments representative of common believer psychology?
Egor's comments are representative of someone not taking his meds.
MadBomr101
This is getting very close to uncivil.
Quote from: The Magic Pudding on December 29, 2011, 05:00:31 AM
Quote from: MadBomr101 on December 29, 2011, 04:39:25 AM
Egor's comments are representative of someone not taking his meds.
Not necessarily, this may be medicated Egor.
The Magic Pudding
Close to the edge there.
Okay
Quote from: Egor on December 28, 2011, 09:25:33 PM
Quote from: Guardian85 on December 28, 2011, 03:00:19 PM
Embracing ignorance? The arrogance you radiate is nauseating.
But I'm born again through faith. I would say my arrogance is justified. I am, after all, part of the royal court of God. I mean that's a fact.
Humble...that's also a fact ;)
Quote from: McQ on December 29, 2011, 05:00:28 AM
Quote from: Egor on December 28, 2011, 09:29:44 PM
Oh really? So, truth existed before there was physical life in the universe? Be careful now, don't fall into any traps! :-X
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.
Quote from: Egor on December 28, 2011, 09:29:44 PM
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?
If a tree falls in the woods and no one hears it, does it make a sound?
Quote from: Egor on December 29, 2011, 07:16:52 AM
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.
I think that now you're really starting to flatter yourself, Egor ::)
Dunning–Kruger effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect)
Egor has told me he is taking a break so don't expect any replies in the near future.
Quote from: Tank on December 29, 2011, 09:41:38 AM
Egor has told me he is taking a break so don't expect any replies in the near future.
Good, because I was wondering why this thread stayed at the top. As far as I'm concerned, the discussion is closed until Egor can verify to us the existence of his God.
And we all know he can't do that.
Quote from: Tank on December 29, 2011, 09:41:38 AM
Egor has told me he is taking a break so don't expect any replies in the near future.
That was probably a good choice because if I see him falsely claim he's about to be banned one more time he will be.
Quote from: Whitney on December 29, 2011, 02:19:25 PM
Quote from: Tank on December 29, 2011, 09:41:38 AM
Egor has told me he is taking a break so don't expect any replies in the near future.
That was probably a good choice because if I see him falsely claim he's about to be banned one more time he will be.
But... But... He REALLY wanted to be a martyr! :(
Quote from: Whitney on December 29, 2011, 02:19:25 PM
Quote from: Tank on December 29, 2011, 09:41:38 AM
Egor has told me he is taking a break so don't expect any replies in the near future.
That was probably a good choice because if I see him falsely claim he's about to be banned one more time he will be.
Good thing he didn't send you the PM then :D
Quote from: Egor on December 29, 2011, 07:16:52 AM
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.
And here is where we disagree and will always disagree. You are mixing terms like "real" and "exist" and "meaning," and in the process you are attempting to win the argument by definition and confusion. The block of wood would exist and be real even if there were no consciousness to perceive it, name it, or define it. It might not be called a "block of wood," but it would exist as matter organized in a particular manner regardless. You simply can't prove your premise that existence or reality requires consciousness. So your argument fails.
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?
Quote from: Egor on December 29, 2011, 07:16:52 AM
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?
And yet again, rather then honestly conceding defeat, Egor portrays himself as both the victim and victor and proclaims that he is not retreating; he is continuing his glorious advance in a different direction!
The military technical term for which is : Running like hell! ;D
Quote from: Guardian85 on December 29, 2011, 03:14:45 PM
The military technical term for which is : Running like hell! ;D
...And for those of us without military affiliation, is called a "tactical retreat". ;D
Quote from: Egor on December 29, 2011, 07:16:52 AM
Quote from: McQ on December 29, 2011, 05:00:28 AM
Quote from: Egor on December 28, 2011, 09:29:44 PM
Oh really? So, truth existed before there was physical life in the universe? Be careful now, don't fall into any traps! :-X
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.
Quote from: Egor on December 28, 2011, 09:29:44 PM
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?
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on December 29, 2011, 03:00:27 PM
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.
Quote from: McQ on December 29, 2011, 03:55:59 PM
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?
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on December 29, 2011, 04:06:30 PM
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.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on December 29, 2011, 05:27:32 PM
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.
Quote from: Twentythree on December 29, 2011, 04:06:56 PM
Quote from: McQ on December 29, 2011, 03:55:59 PM
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. ;)
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.
Quote from: Twentythree on December 29, 2011, 07:18:41 PM
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.
Quote from: Twentythree on December 29, 2011, 07:18:41 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: Egor on December 29, 2011, 07:58:46 PM
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?
They can't e-mail you, your e-mail is set to private. Did you mean Private Message (PM) you?
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?
Quote from: Egor on December 29, 2011, 07:58:46 PM
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.
Quote from: Egor on December 29, 2011, 07:58:46 PM
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.
I'm tired of this mellow dramatic nonsense...I said that If you claimed falsely that you were threatened with banning one more time that I'd make it happen. So...phase 1 ban...1 week. It will force you to take the break you keep claiming you are going to take anyway.
Quote from: Guardian85 on December 29, 2011, 08:30:45 PM
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.
Nothing new here. Eddy had his ass handed to him on a plate repeatedly on another forum and retreated into his persecution complex to sulk....
Quote from: Egor on December 29, 2011, 07:58:46 PM
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?
It certainly seems that this is the position you were maneuvering for the entire time. Odd behavior.
Quote from: Egor on December 28, 2011, 09:25:33 PM
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.
Yeah? And this sounds like Plato's "Theory of Forms" which Aristotle demolished 2500 years ago. Really, this is quite old and quite dis-proven.
Happy
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on December 29, 2011, 05:27:32 PM
They can run it up the flagpole and see if anyone salutes, but that's about the extent of it.
True, since barring some personal (and untransferable) experience that one perceives as encountering god, all religious talk and writing boils down to "some guy said". Or worse, "some guy said that some guy said". Even assuming that a god does exist and some people have their consciousness sufficiently if briefly altered to perceive it (and a chemical adjustment to consciousness is fine by me -- you won't find a shaman anywhere in the world who wouldn't back that up) I think there'd still be the blind men and the elephant problem. No ones perception would be the same, and many would be wildly different. And I have to wonder how many people have had similar experiences without perceiving it as an encounter with any kind of god at all?
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on December 29, 2011, 10:24:21 PM
Quote from: Egor on December 29, 2011, 07:58:46 PM
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?
It certainly seems that this is the position you were maneuvering for the entire time. Odd behavior.
Not if you read his blog. That makes his behavior perfectly clear.
I don't really understand an argument from truth, shouldn't an argument start with a claim which is defended and perhaps establishes a truth? It seems odd to have an argument starting from truth, if you already have the truth why bother arguing about it?
As far as I can tell, Egor fails (at least sometimes) to distinguish between the objective and the subjective realms. He conflates the two. "My perception and understanding of the thing is the thing."
Scientists have studied babies with regard to their ability to distinguish between the objective and subjective realms. For example, when a baby reaches a certain age, if you show the baby a toy, and then hide the toy behind some obstacle, the baby will try to move the obstacle or move itself around the obstacle so as to regain line of sight to the toy. This tells us the baby realizes the toy continues to exist even when the baby can't see it. But the baby has to reach a certain age before it will exhibit such behavior. Prior to this age, the baby presumably doesn't distinguish between the objective and subjective realms. "I see it, therefore it exists. I don't see it, therefore it doesn't exist." That perspective is implied by the propositions Egor puts forward as premises.
Man, I keep going a couple of days without coming to the boards and missing another nice, long and worthless thread started by Egor.
Something I find funny, which I hope the mods will take as merely an observation and not a personal attack, is that among Egor's friends, he's probably considered the 'smart one'. That's what arrogance and bullshit philosophy does to weak minds.
Quote from: Heisenberg on January 01, 2012, 12:33:44 AM
Man, I keep going a couple of days without coming to the boards and missing another nice, long and worthless thread started by Egor.
Something I find funny, which I hope the mods will take as merely an observation and not a personal attack, is that among Egor's friends, he's probably considered the 'smart one'. That's what arrogance and bullshit philosophy does to weak minds.
No problem with that here. I'm just surprised that anyone believes the bullshit. He's currently slinging lots of it over on his blog, including how HAF "can't hang" with him and how he totally owned us. I was just alerted to it today. It's a hoot. Can't wait for him to come back and obliterate our arguments.
:-\
So, waiting for more of the argument from truth...
Bleh..! The Asmo was following these threads of Egor's, but then he decided that his time was better spent admiring the hair in a mirror. :D
Quote from: McQ on January 01, 2012, 03:47:10 AM
He's currently slinging lots of it over on his blog, including how HAF "can't hang" with him and how he totally owned us. I was just alerted to it today. It's a hoot.
Whatever makes him happy and keeps him (fingers crossed) off the streets.
Quote from: EgorHere 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.
Drink!
Quote from: EgorI 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?
Drink!
Quote from: EgorYes, 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.
Drink! Drink!
Quote from: EgorBut 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?
*hiccup* Drink! (https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fth16.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fb19%2Fplaybiller%2Femoticon%2Fth_eatdrink048.gif&hash=97278e8f1cd843d45fa438c91e6b8096cec12fdb)
Quote from: McQ on January 01, 2012, 03:47:10 AM
Quote from: Heisenberg on January 01, 2012, 12:33:44 AM
Man, I keep going a couple of days without coming to the boards and missing another nice, long and worthless thread started by Egor.
Something I find funny, which I hope the mods will take as merely an observation and not a personal attack, is that among Egor's friends, he's probably considered the 'smart one'. That's what arrogance and bullshit philosophy does to weak minds.
No problem with that here. I'm just surprised that anyone believes the bullshit. He's currently slinging lots of it over on his blog, including how HAF "can't hang" with him and how he totally owned us. I was just alerted to it today. It's a hoot. Can't wait for him to come back and obliterate our arguments.
:-\
So, waiting for more of the argument from truth...
Well, I did find his logic befuddling. If that means I 'can't hang' with him, then so be it.
Quote from: McQ on January 01, 2012, 03:47:10 AM
He's currently slinging lots of it over on his blog, including how HAF "can't hang" with him and how he totally owned us. I was just alerted to it today. It's a hoot. Can't wait for him to come back and obliterate our arguments.
:-\
It's very sad that some people have to be that way in order to feel good about themselves.
I guess I can be happy to say that I haven't given Egor enough thought to even know where this
grand blog is.
Quote from: Whitney on January 01, 2012, 05:47:20 PM
I guess I can be happy to say that I haven't given Egor enough thought to even know where this grand blog is.
Came across it while satisfying my obsession with background checks on weird theists, but never bothered to read it.
I don't mean to be snide and nasty but a person would have to be somewhat mentally challenged to think that physical objects cannot exist without a consciousness present to define them. His argument is more bizarre than most we have heard given that most of his posts hadn't been too weird apart from his enthusiastic call to have a holy war.
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on January 01, 2012, 12:31:40 PM
*hiccup* Drink! (https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fth16.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fb19%2Fplaybiller%2Femoticon%2Fth_eatdrink048.gif&hash=97278e8f1cd843d45fa438c91e6b8096cec12fdb)
Yep. Ed is one of those people who makes me sad I don't drink.
Quote from: Asmodean on January 01, 2012, 06:24:48 PM
Quote from: Whitney on January 01, 2012, 05:47:20 PM
I guess I can be happy to say that I haven't given Egor enough thought to even know where this grand blog is.
Came across it while satisfying my obsession with background checks on weird theists, but never bothered to read it.
He also told us how to find it in his first post and my curiosity got the better of me. Let me know exactly what to expect from him and he proved true to form.
I have obviously missed some interesting things here. I had a hard time following his points, but what I gathered was this:
Despite there being physical objects prior to living consciousness, those things only existed if there were a consciousness? If that is his argument in a nutshell, even if we accepted that as truth, it still wouldn't be evidence of a god. It would simply mean there was a god and things existed prior to us, or there is no god and things that exist didn't exist until we existed...
Quote from: ThinkAnarchy on January 06, 2012, 09:34:13 PM
I have obviously missed some interesting things here. I had a hard time following his points,
That's probably because they move about, they're kind of wobbly.
I find it best to approximate trajectory and place myself where I think they are least likely to land.
Quote from: ThinkAnarchy on January 06, 2012, 09:34:13 PM
I have obviously missed some interesting things here. I had a hard time following his points, but what I gathered was this:
Despite there being physical objects prior to living consciousness, those things only existed if there were a consciousness? If that is his argument in a nutshell, even if we accepted that as truth, it still wouldn't be evidence of a god. It would simply mean there was a god and things existed prior to us, or there is no god and things that exist didn't exist until we existed...
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't he basically saying that he imagines his reality? ???
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on January 07, 2012, 03:34:51 AM
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't he basically saying that he imagines his reality? ???
Maybe. I could read his blog to better understand his argument, but I clicked it once and he compared atheists to rapists. That was the point where I was done. When he compared non-violent atheists to violent rapists he lost any credibility he might have had on any subject.
He lost all credibility with me within three days after he first showed up. He really hasn't got a clue what he's talking about and the arrogance act gets old fast.