*Oh dear Spanky, are you confusing delusion with illusion?*
Oh Mr Rat... It seems like I am the only one bringing evidences to the table. Here are dictionary evidences for you
_delusion_
_2. the state of being deluded._ (1)
Let me add the definition of "delude" because I am starting to doubt that english language is your first language
_delude_
_1. to mislead the mind or judgment of; deceive:_ (3)
do you see the word "deceive" there? good.
_Illusion_
_2. the state or condition of being deceived; misapprehension._ (2)
Do you see the word deceive there too again? Good. It seems like you do not know what a "synonymn" is. Both of them mean the same thing. Mr Evidenceless.
*Are you resorting to baseless accusations now? I have never deleted anybody's posts.*
Again ... Mr Rat does not know how to follow an argument. - facepalm - Let me help you since you are so poor and helpless. That was a guilt by association fallacy. Happy Now? Even if I defeated myself. But it was meant as an insult since the only language you understand is insultive languages Mr Rat. In the congtext of talking to +Rolo Beorn , I included you because you support him and his actions. If not, tell me that you do not support him and his actions in deleting my replies.
Secondly is that the only arguement in that context you are going to respond to?
How about show your delusion on how you said:
_"Nobody is deleting your posts Sport."_
Oh please defend that one. You know what they say. "Silence is be best answer for the defeated".
*Even if I wanted to, I couldn't. I am neither an administrator nor the creator of this video so how could I? The most I could do is flag a comment as spam, but even then it takes multiple flags to get a comment removed. And I can assure you I never flagged any of your comments.*
Good then you agree with me that you have no authoritative right to say:
_"Nobody is deleting your posts Sport."_
Wow... you CAN be wise from time to time by admitting correction.
*Nope. I stopped talking to imaginary friends when I was still a child. It's high time you did too ;)*
oK ... Good. But you are making the assumption that God is imaginary. Please lay your syllogism and let us see. If not, that is a baseless/ blanket assertion and argumentum ad lapidem.
The reason I pray to God is NOT because HE is imaginary ... thanks for demontrating your ignorance over the christian position. The christian argues that if God, a necessarily maximally great being, exists, we did not imagine HIM, *HE IMAGINED US* ... Oh God, how long do I have to deal with this ignorant rat?
*And you know this how?*
Please ... notice the first word in that sentence ... *seems*
Here is a dictionary definition to educate yourself on some english language:
_Seem_ (4)
_to appear to be true, probable, or evident:_
_It seems likely to rain._
Let me simply answer it: I don't "know" if this is true. It "appears" to be true due to the contextual data I am receiving from the probability of our discussion and I am laying it down as good evidence to theorise/ believe/ suspect.
*Not vile Spanky. I said virile. Can you not see the extra two letters there? Virile is defined as having strength or energy. In other words, the exact opposite of your arguments. The point of the analogy was to illustrate that your arguments are impotent.*
Oh ... ok... now I see. Let me step back and re-iterate myself. Sorry for that, my eyes were so filled with hate and maddness that I could not see your arguements properly.
*Your so called "arguments" are about as virile (and arrogant) as a flea who, after sexually attacking an elephant says, "Did I hurt you baby?"*
That argument makes no sense now... please... explain this if not this a Fallacy of False Analogy.
*Funny how you admit you don't know me, and yet you presume to know that I "can never accomplish anything good in my life". Contradictory much?*
Not contradictory much .... it is "no-english much" I said it "seems". ayaya ...
*At least my conclusions about you are based on things that you yourself have stated. For example, your demonstrable lack of understanding of what science is. I'm perfectly justified in making those conclusions when, by your own words, you hand me the rope with which to hang you.*
Really? You mean the ones where you show how you jumped the gun? You mean the one where you didn't wait to hear the arguments before making conclusions? Yeah ... less than _things I stated_ and more like _things you IMAGINED I stated. Here's a piece of advise for you... next time when you see
_BE PATIENT I'M STILL EDITING THIS AND THE ABOVE ARGUMENTS ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE_
in an argument ... maybe you would shut up, keep quiet, be actually patient and wait to see what I have ACTUALLY have to say. That example, MR RAT was actually concrete and the best analogy you've given in the whole of this discussion to back up your very strong arguments - NOT! - Sarcarsm.
*Sure, in exactly the same way that your god is pointless to me.*
So why were you guys (your association) actually aggitated and angry and insulting me over something so pointless. It seems to me that "God is not so pointless actually"... HE makes you react in this objective real world hahahaha.
*See how that works Sport? When you understand why you dismiss the 30,000+ other gods that people worship, you'lll understand why atheists go that one tiny step farther by also dismissing yours. You'll also understand the absurdity of believing that you somehow won the lottery by being born into a culture that just happened to indoctrinate you with the one "true" god out of many, many thousands.*
please read here http://www.gotquestions.org/correct-religion.html
This stupid statement you have made has been answered OVER AND OVER AGAIN ... to show you why Intelligent Adults still believe in the God of the Bible - a maximally, necessary great being.
Thanks for demonstrating your ignorance of the Christian Position. I could re-explain this to you but you are too ignorant to understand how ignorant you are mr Rat.
Oh dear Spanky, are you confusing delusion with illusion? Oh Mr Rat... It seems like I am the only one bringing evidences to the table. Here are dictionary evidences for you
delusion 2. the state of being deluded. (1)
Let me add the definition of "delude" because I am starting to doubt that english language is your first language
delude 1. to mislead the mind or judgment of; deceive: (3)
do you see the word "deceive" there? good.
Illusion 2. the state or condition of being deceived; misapprehension. (2)
Do
you see the word deceive there too again? Good. It seems like you do
not know what a "synonymn" is. Both of them mean the same thing. Mr
Evidenceless.
Are you resorting to baseless accusations now? I have never deleted anybody's posts. Again
... Mr Rat does not know how to follow an argument. - facepalm - Let me
help you since you are so poor and helpless. That was a guilt by
association fallacy. Happy Now? Even if I defeated myself. But it was
meant as an insult since the only language you understand is insultive
languages Mr Rat. In the congtext of talking to +Rolo Beorn
, I included you because you support him and his actions. If not, tell
me that you do not support him and his actions in deleting my replies. Secondly is that the only arguement in that context you are going to respond to? How about show your delusion on how you said: "Nobody is deleting your posts Sport." Oh please defend that one. You know what they say. "Silence is be best answer for the defeated".
Even
if I wanted to, I couldn't. I am neither an administrator nor the
creator of this video so how could I? The most I could do is flag a
comment as spam, but even then it takes multiple flags to get a comment
removed. And I can assure you I never flagged any of your comments. Good then you agree with me that you have no authoritative right to say: "Nobody is deleting your posts Sport." Wow... you CAN be wise from time to time by admitting correction.
Nope. I stopped talking to imaginary friends when I was still a child. It's high time you did too ;) oK
... Good. But you are making the assumption that God is imaginary.
Please lay your syllogism and let us see. If not, that is a baseless/
blanket assertion and argumentum ad lapidem. The reason I pray to God
is NOT because HE is imaginary ... thanks for demontrating your
ignorance over the christian position. The christian argues that if God,
a necessarily maximally great being, exists, we did not imagine HIM, HE IMAGINED US ... Oh God, how long do I have to deal with this ignorant rat?
And you know this how? Please ... notice the first word in that sentence ... seems Here is a dictionary definition to educate yourself on some english language:
Seem (4) to appear to be true, probable, or evident: It seems likely to rain.
Let
me simply answer it: I don't "know" if this is true. It "appears" to be
true due to the contextual data I am receiving from the probability of
our discussion and I am laying it down as good evidence to theorise/
believe/ suspect.
Not vile Spanky. I said virile. Can you not
see the extra two letters there? Virile is defined as having strength or
energy. In other words, the exact opposite of your arguments. The point
of the analogy was to illustrate that your arguments are impotent. Oh
... ok... now I see. Let me step back and re-iterate myself. Sorry for
that, my eyes were so filled with hate and maddness that I could not see
your arguements properly. Your so called "arguments" are about as
virile (and arrogant) as a flea who, after sexually attacking an
elephant says, "Did I hurt you baby?" That argument makes no sense now... please... explain this if not this a Fallacy of False Analogy.
Funny
how you admit you don't know me, and yet you presume to know that I
"can never accomplish anything good in my life". Contradictory much? Not contradictory much .... it is "no-english much" I said it "seems". ayaya ...
At
least my conclusions about you are based on things that you yourself
have stated. For example, your demonstrable lack of understanding of
what science is. I'm perfectly justified in making those conclusions
when, by your own words, you hand me the rope with which to hang you. Really?
You mean the ones where you show how you jumped the gun? You mean the
one where you didn't wait to hear the arguments before making
conclusions? Yeah ... less than things I stated and more like _things you IMAGINED I stated. Here's a piece of advise for you... next time when you see
BE PATIENT I'M STILL EDITING THIS AND THE ABOVE ARGUMENTS ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE
in
an argument ... maybe you would shut up, keep quiet, be actually
patient and wait to see what I have ACTUALLY have to say. That example,
MR RAT was actually concrete and the best analogy you've given in the
whole of this discussion to back up your very strong arguments - NOT! -
Sarcarsm.
Sure, in exactly the same way that your god is pointless to me. So
why were you guys (your association) actually aggitated and angry and
insulting me over something so pointless. It seems to me that "God is
not so pointless actually"... HE makes you react in this objective real
world hahahaha.
See how that works Sport? When you understand
why you dismiss the 30,000+ other gods that people worship, you'lll
understand why atheists go that one tiny step farther by also dismissing
yours. You'll also understand the absurdity of believing that you
somehow won the lottery by being born into a culture that just happened
to indoctrinate you with the one "true" god out of many, many thousands.
please read here http://www.gotquestions.org/correct-religion.html This
stupid statement you have made has been answered OVER AND OVER AGAIN
... to show you why Intelligent Adults still believe in the God of the
Bible - a maximally, necessary great being. Thanks for demonstrating
your ignorance of the Christian Position. I could re-explain this to you
but you are too ignorant to understand how ignorant you are mr Rat.
oh Jesus have mercy! I'm going to have to be harsh with you.
*Your
'arguments' are without a foundation, as you have already admitted that
you can't provide proof for the existence of your god. You can't build an argument on mere thin air.* *1
QUESTION*: Can you *prove* that you are not a brain in a vat, and that
this reality (digested food in your stomach, people around you, your
age) is not all fake and programmed into your brain like in the matrix? I
am not asking for *evidence*, I want *proof*. Read your dictionary and
know the difference between proof and evidence. Please prove it to me to
100% degree of certainty. If not, your reference called "reality" is
just on thin air too.
*I do this for a good reason.* *You have NOT provided ANY evidence for the existence of your particular god, among the many thousands of other MAN MADE gods.* Oh so now you want evidence and not proof? Ok... here are some philosophical evidences: - The Cosmological Argument - The Moral Arguement - The ontological Argument - The teleological argument
Which one of them due don you think is false on grounds of objective logic? WHY?
*It seems to YOU that your god exists, but you DON'T have ANY proof for it whatsoever.* Now
you want proof? MAKE UP YOUR MIND? DO YOU WANT PROOF OR EVIDENCE. If
you want proof, go away, I have not proof as I have told you. If you
want evidence ... tell me which philosophical evidence in the above
arguments you do not believe in.
If you don't answer anything else, answer the part where I said *"1 QUESTION"* ... Thank you
Hey Mr RAT. Seem... I do not get in what context the delusion runs deep with me, if not, shouldn't you be worrying that you are talking to a delusion right now and go see your psychologists? So, in what way does the delusion run deep? In my person or in this discussion context? If not... that bland, generalising statement holds no justifiable grounds.
*Nobody is deleting your posts Sport.*
Oh you want to tell me that one more time wheb +Rolo Beorn actually said and I quote:
_"I might have deleted a comment that was too ludicrous and pointless."_
_"Dog bless you"_
Please look at it one more time and tell me that nobody is deleting my comments. If I do not trust you guys anymore, don't blame me... you started it by insulting me by deleting my arguments so... say it one more time and show eveyone who really has the delusions.
Secondly, you are not a proper authority to appeal to, to make that assertion. If +Rolo Beorn or the video creator or YouTube Administration said so... I would believe. So... Mr Rat is assuming authoritative roles that he isn't even supposed to be positioned in. I wonder where the delusions really run deep.
*This is a known problem with YouTube ever since they made changes. I cannot see my own posts in the comment section either. But if you look in the notification side pane (under the little bell), the entire conversation thread is there, unaltered.*
Oh is that so? Why didnt you just say that? Oh I forgot that you are MR RAT and MR TROLL and you don't know what thety call "The Art of Civilised Discussion". Even when you wanna do good things to people you must always add a piece of badness to it. Have you prayed to God to remove this curse from you? Seems like you can never accomplish anything good in your life!
*Your so called "arguments" are about as virile (and arrogant) as a flea who, after sexually attacking an elephant says, "Did I hurt you baby?"*
Wow! You are calling my arguments vile by resorting to vile innuendos. Your hypocricrisy and disingenuity is noted. This is the best example you could come up with? Thanks for showing us how vile your own arguments too really is.
Secondly, you are coming to this conclusion based on imaginary arguments that are not even here - I wonder where the delusion actually runs deep. Please... show us this argments that are so vile and arrogant. Oh? No where?... ayaya ...
*Keep stroking your ego by thinking you have pearls of wisdom to cast.*
Category Mistake between
1. Ego and
2. Pearls of Wisdom
Study the definition of Category mistake. Ego or no-ego ... it does not necessitate the objective logic of "pearls of wisdom." Please... put away your appeal to emotions... we are trying to have a logical discussion here.
*The rest of us will continue to regard you for what you are: the court jester (a.k.a. fool).*
You do not know me and I do not know you. I wonder who the delusional one is. Tell me more about myself that I don't know ... come on... since you like enjoying your delusion fantasy as to who your wishful thinking wants me to be. Tell me more and show us all who the delusional one is Mr RAT.
*Odin bless you (glad as hell I'm not you)*
Odin is pointless to me. And ok... ok? ...ok ... you are free to be glad you are not me... I dont see the point there. You are you and I am me... so? - still looking for the logic in that statement - .
God bless you (glad as "heaven" that I am not you)
I am replying to you three in one go because you are all asking for the same thing. I appreciate you +Brad White
that you are willing to be convinced either way. I cannot say for the
remaining other two guys especially for the one who displayed "trollage"
by calling me a moron. God bless you - you know who you are. You insult
me and you don't even know me. You curse and I bless - we shall see who
the more evidential moral one is becaue Atheism has no objective
morals. God will judge between us - you will see.
1. THE CORRECT TESTING METHODOLOGY? I
appreciate you guys for providing testing-methodologies, observation
analysis and repeatable/predictive/testable experiments that would prove
that your Atheism to be Falsifiable - which is a requirement in terms
of "logic" so as to avoid committing an Unfalsifiable Fallacy. Well
done. One fundamental rule in the Philosophy of Sciene is that:
The Correct Methodology must be applied to the correct (subject) test
Please read more on the philosophy of science (1) and notice that there are many aspects to science such as - The Philosophy of Biology - The Philosophy of Chemistry - The Philosophy of Mathematics Hence,
to buttress my point that the testing methodology for different things
are likewise different depending on the query you are trying to solve.
This reminds me of the Sherlock Holmes Camping Joke:
Sherlock Holmes Camping Joke Sherlock
Holmes and Dr Watson went on a camping trip. After a good meal and a
bottle of red wine, they lay down for the night and went to sleep.
Some
hours later Holmes woke up, nudged his faithful friend and said,
"Watson, I want you to look up at the sky and tell me what you see."
Watson said, "I see millions and millions of stars." Sherlock said,
"And what does that tell you?"
After a minute or so of
pondering Watson said, "*Astronomically*, it tells me that there are
millions of galaxies and potentially billions of planets. Astrologically, I observe that Saturn is in Leo. Horologically, I deduce that the time is approximately a quarter past three in the morning. Theologically, I can see that God is all powerful and that we are small and insignificant. Metereologically, I suspect that we will have a beautiful day today. What does it tell you?"
Holmes was silent for about 30 seconds and said, "Watson, you idiot! Someone has stolen our tent!"
IN THE SAME WAY ... ...Just like there are many mutually-inclusive ways to explain a certain thing in terms of science, there are likewise many ways to explain that same exact certain thing in terms of non-science just as you have seen in the example of the Sherlock Holmes Camping Joke. This is why I will repeat:
The Correct Methodology must be applied to the correct (subject or) test
2. PHILOSOPHY OF THE CORRECT TESTING METHODOLOGY I
am sure that you have heard about Occam's Razor? Which is a rule in the
philosophy of science regarding the proper testing methodology which
says that you should not multiply causes beyond necessity. (Please if
you do not know the difference and similiarities between "necessity" and
"sufficiency" please study about it (2). This is to reduce my verbiage
because I want to give you the estimated credit that you are briliant/
intelligent guys and you understand what I am talking about.) That is to
say:
for an explanation to be the best explanation to a certain query, YOU DON'T NEED AN EXPLANATION OF THE EXPLANATION
Hence,
this is why in science academic examinations, if you over explain your
answers to the questions in the exams as if to show that you're a
know-it-all, your tendency of failing that exam increases. So these are
logical steps that we are applying even in our educational and academic
systems and I believe that it is reasonable.
3. WHY HAVE I SAID ALL THIS? - Sequitur Contextual Relevance and Logical Applicability I
have said all this because I appreciate the fact you have done
something not many Atheists like the silly Matt Dillihaunti would do. You
have actually provide Falsifiable Testing Methodoogies, Observational
Analysis and repeatable/predictive/testable experiments that can be applied to prove that:
Atheism can be proven false
Unlike the silly, die-hard tribe, fallacious and ignorant Matt Dillihanuti who says:
_"...Atheism... cannot be proven to be true..."
Such nonsense. Ok... these are the testing methodology you have provided and I going to scrutinise if they are PROPER TESTING METHODOLOGIES 1.
All that is needed is for God to show Himself. get off his ass, come
down from the clouds and show himself to us. It's that simple. 2. Or, lacking that, some compelling evidence. Forget proof ... All I want is some evidence. 3. I reject something that you have no proof for. 4. you god believers can't even make a simple argument.
1 This
testing methodology fails on the grounds of necessity and sufficiency.
That's like criminologists or archeologists using forensic science
saying that: "_All that is needed is for the perpetrator to come out and
show himself_" No, investigators do not necessarily need the
"subject" (eg Designer) as a sufficient conditon to infer the "object"
(eg Design). So... until to ask for a proper testing methodology, I find
this testinf methodology silly and absurd for people of intelligence.
2 There are two parts to this I want to address 1. Compelling Evidence 2. Evidence
2.1.
Sorry, I am not here to "compel" your subjectivity as though I were
some sort of magician here to impress you. That would be a subjectivist
fallacy. Rather, I am here to lay down some good OBJECTIVE logic to
posit the resonableness of blieving or theorising God.
2.2.
The Christian has many arguement and they are done their own side of
the burden of proof. It would be up to you to take the syllogisms of the
Christian and tell us why it fails on objective logic while
scrutinising our arguments with a large applicable list of fallacies.
There are over 50+ Arguments for the existence of God. I will give you a
blank cheque ... which one of them do you find fallacious? Such as - The Cosmological Argument - The Moral Argument - The Teleological Argument - The Argument from Intentionality - Lots more etc
Pick
one and tell me which one you find fallacious and we can scrutinise it
together in a mutually-respected, civilised and intellectual manner.
3 I
am assuming that you are intelligent enough to know the difference
between "proof" and "evidence". I am sorry, I do not have any "proof"
like a mathematical proof such as saying 1 + 1 = God ... no... rather, I
have Philosophical Arguments with Supporting Scientific Evidences. If you want proof, I'm sorry you are barking up the wrong tree and you need to look for someone omniscient
enough to "proof" God to you to a degree of absolute certainty. There
are many things that are reasonable to believe even though there are no
proof for them (check your dictionary semantic for proof) - There is no proof that makes a poem beautiful. - There is no proof that you are not a brain in a vat. - There is no proof that my wife loves me nor that I love her. HOWEVER, it is reasonable to accept the evidences just as they are ie, by faith (not to be confused with blindfaith).
4 Let's play the sherlock holmes game: - Intellectually, that is ignorant of the christian position. We have made arguments - Socially, that is insulting - Metaphysically, that is your subjective opinion - keep it to yourself. - Morally, you have just told a lie. - Experientially you are just naive. - Empirically, NO.
Lastly,
I have a feeling that someone is deleting my replies... so I will back
it up on my blog (3) and if I do not see this argument here the next
time I come here... then I will know for sure that someone is toying
with me because my arguments are so true, they cannot swallow the
bitter-truth due to their emotional appeal/ crutches.
God bless you all and I look forward to your replies.
I
have to thank you once again for re-reminding me on the question and
showing me this great grace - what do you know? Atheists can show their
emotional-cructches called acts of kindness too even though they have no
non-fallacious way of ontologically justifying/ grounding it in
OBJECTIVE terminologies hahahaha (just teasing you).
Secondly ...
I do not believe that anybody has 100% conviction power over the
subjectivity over another person. But this is an analogy and it does not
apply to this objective real life - so I will play with you
Is this objectively moral or Inmoral?
This is objectivly
immoral of this analogical you. And I want to lay MORE emphasis on the
fact that you used the word "objective" to as an adjective for moral.
How did you come to that conclusion?
Here how I come to that conclusion by reshaping this argument (1):
THE MORAL ARGUEMENT
1. It is more reasonable to believe that moral obligations come from moral laws givers.
2. To be Objective means to be true IRRESPECTIVE of if everybody thinks subjectively that it is wrong.
3. To be true means that you have to endure constantly and neccessaily without neccesarily being contingent on physical reality.
4. God is Constant and Necessry Being.
5. "Persons" intrinsically imbible morality into their nature.
6. God is Person.
7. God is a constant and necessary being because HE deped on no one and nothing else to exist.
8.
God is the best inference (OR reference point) to grounding true
objective values because HE is a constant and necessary being.
9. Objective values and duties DO exists.
10.
Therefore, deductively, it necessarily follows that it is more
reasonable to believe that God exists as the best ontological grounding
for objective moral values and duties.
more justification
Your
analogical self in the example is objectively immoral because your
actions go anti- to the actions that God would generally take in that
condition - ie, given that there are no other sufficient moral reasons
God will do the opposite. However, I do not see any other sufficient
moreal reasons why you moral-goodness would come out from being like
"satan" [name meaning "accuser"] - who convinces people not to take
morally good actions but later on the day of judgement, would accuse
them/ sue them in God's court for being convinced by him in the first
place. If you have any additionaly moral sufficiency of why what the
analogical-you did to Jame is good, just and fair to James (seeing that
you have 100% conviction power over him) then please ... give the
reasons. Maybe James is in on this too and he is willingly allowing
you to 100% convince him into evil knowing that you would sue him later
on. No different than you know that the devil will sue you for not
believing in God but you still choose not to believe in God by allowing
the devil to 100% convince you to believe that God is not real - just
an example, I do not want to add anything into the mouth of your analogy
- i'm just expanding IF sufficient moral reasons justify you from doing
this evil deed.
This is to say that God is not like the deceiving-god of Islam. God does not lie nor deceive:
God
is not human, that he should lie, not a human being, that he should
change his mind. Does he speak and then not act? Does he promise and not
fulfill?
And since your analogical moral actions are nothing
like God's Objective, unchanging and morally good actions - you are
therefore immoral.
Here is a link on how Atheism FAILS on grounds of morality (2).
So... why don't you tell me... are your analogical actions OBJECTIVELY moral or immoral on an atheistic platform without fallacious appealing to:
- Population: and saying "that's how everyone thinks"
-
Emotions/ Pain: and saying "if it does not hurt/ harm anyone" as if
people who hurt/ harm themselves in the gym are objectively evil
- subjectivism/ relativism: because this destroys the original question as to the "objectiveness" of morality.
+Rolo Beorn Lastly...
you did not see that the cambrian explosion is still debunking
Evolution Theory by Natural Selection (ETBNS) - be it Darwin's or not.
That Darwin Quote I gave you
"If it could be demonstrated that
any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by
numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely
break down." --Charles Darwin, Origin of Species
This
Quote still applies to evolution theory by natural selection - as long
as naturla selection is involved. Unless you want to talk about
supernatural selection hahaha... why? Because you already called the
fact I used Darwin's exact words "stupid".
You did not and have
not tackled my arguments even for this context of ETBNS. Seems to me
like you have a better explanation for the Cambrian Explosion that is
not "Intelligent Design". Please, lay down your strong arguments and
stop resorting to Argumentums Ad Lapidems or Baseless/ Blanket
Assertions.
+88rat88 Sometimes some arguments are so fallacious, I could write a book about them.
Greetings Spanky. Greetings "rat". oh wow! will you look at that? It seems like what they say is true: the apple does not fall far from the tree I
don't have to go to far to give a nickname you will be pleased with -
you don't have to look far, it's already in your chosen&satisfied
name - rat.
While you're educating yourself on the meaning of
"troll", do yourself a favor and look up "strawman" as well, because
you're using it wrong.
Here is wikipedia's take on straw man (2)
A
straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based
on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while
actually refuting an argument which was not advanced by that
opponent.[1]
The Category-Context that was advanced = Proving the Supernatural The Category-Context that was not advanced = Biblical slavery
So for you to say
"1) I've read your stuff on this thread long enough for it to register on my bullshit meter as the pseudoscientific mumbo jumbo that it is."
means
that you were displaying your lack of tact to present coherent
rebuttals to the context of our discussion. Using a guilt-by-association
fallacy for "all my discussions" in this thread is just fallacious. We
aren't even talking about the same category context anymore. That's like
killing your parents because you had a dream that they wanted to kill
you - totally irrelevant. Maybe you should be the one to study what a
straw man actually means.
Precisely Spanky, and thanks for proving my point. You're
welcome. I was not "proving" your point. I was "quoting" you. The only
point I'm proving here is your straw man. Unless of course, you are
agreeing that I have proven that you have made a contextual straw man
... then good - finally ... you notice.
This is now the third
time I'm pointing out to you that this statement of yours stands alone
as proof that you do not understand science. And this is now the third time I am pointing out to you that you made a straw man by jumping the gun. Did you not see
BE PATIENT I'M STILL EDITING THIS AND THE ABOVE ARGUMENTS ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE
when I was replying to +Rolo Beorn
. If I told you that I can make your wallet disappear in your back
pocket without touching you, would you say "That is a nonsensical and
stupid thing to say"? Or would you rather say "I'll be patient, that
burden of proof is on you, please demonstrate". And if you were patient
enough to see the reply I gave +Rolo Beorn , +Rolo Beorn
nor you have debunked the 4 scientific arguments I advanced about
evidence for the supernatural world. You are like the guy who keeps
shouting "That's nonsensical, that's stupid" while I have sucessfully
stolen your wallet without touching you. Keep deceiving yourself all day
long in your emotional crutch. Secondly, you never produced a
counter-argument to the fact that I dichotomised your argument and my
argument. This is what I said:
YOUR LAST PARAGRAPH I
somewhat agree with what you are saying to a degree AND you are
admitting the limitations of science. Well done. HOWEVER... that
statement (C1) was not suggestive of the dealings / methodology of
science, but rather it was suggestive of the usefulness of science ie,
what science can be used for. For example, the methodology of the
keyboard you are typing with is for typing - simple typing; but! the
usefulness of the keyboard can be used smash someone's face and break
their teeth. Here, we see the keyboard being extruded from the
constraints of what the keyboard is concerned about into
somewhat-metaphysical-other-things the keyboard can be used to do.
Anybody that is a sentient creature can use science for many other thing - Hitler can use science to justify killing jews - Dylann Roof can use science to justify killing people in church - Theists can use it to posit the supernatural world - Scientist can use science to advocate using the ebola virus to commit mass genocide (R2)
Do
you want me to go on? Or are you convinced of your strawman in your
confusion between what science is concerned about and what it can be
used to posit?
Have I see any response to this? No - rather
you appeal to me ego which I will address later. Maybe a simple - oh, I
understand, you're right - I see the fallacy of my own thinking now.
Thanks .... I admit intellectual honesty. Maybe a kinda response like
that. But you keep commiting an avoiding the issue fallacy of the fact
that the methodology of sciece (the things science is concern about) is
NOT the same thing as the usefulness of science - the things science can
be used for eg proving/ buttressing a point - irrespective of whether
it is scientific or not. Last time I check, Lawrence Krauss tried to use
science to prove that (some)thing could come from not-thing. That's
like saying love could come out of not-love. A scientific
impossibility and philosophical jargon, yet he tried and you atheists
call it "scientific". But you call the fact I am trying to prove God can
be proven scientifically nonsense? I see your bias confirmation -
Double Standards.
Also, you did not object to the fact that I accurately defined you as a troll. Nice. You know that wise adage?
Silence is the best answer for a fool
Well
done. But rather, you congratulated me that I am indeed getting an
education, an elightenment into the proper definition of what a troll
is. I believe that you now see how much of a troll you are but you are
too ashamed to admit it that I have defined it and your actions
accurately. That's alrihgt ... as long as you are changing... you are
forgiven.
My sole reason for bringing up the slavery context
was to illustrate to you that I've been a contributing participant in
this thread since the beginning, and therefore not a troll. No more, no
less. Well, thanks for admitting your intentioanlity fallacy. You
think appealing to your intentions rather than the objective &
logical way your argument was used is a good arguement? Honest of you
yes but in the objective context of logical discourse, you committed a
straw man. That's like me saying for example "My sole (intention or)
reason for talking to you today in all this harsh way is to make you
laugh. Come on, laugh with me hahahahahahahahaha - you must be feeling
very ticklish now right? hahahahahahahahahaha " - nonsense. I don't care
about your intentions or sole purposes. You committed trolling in that
insulting manner you responded to me and you committed a contextual
straw man and it is as clear as day to any rational thinking person
reading our discussion flow context.
Are all of your arguments so ridiculous and knee-jerk? Let me answer it simply for you - No
You don't impress me nearly enough to make me bother reading the rest of your girthful verbosity. You are mistaken, I'm not here to impress you. Now we have that misunderstanding out of the way we can make progress. Next,
this is a reverse-proof by verbosity fallacy because you are submitting
to me that my argument must be false because it is too complex and
verbouse to reasonably deal with in all its intimate details. I'm
sorry... just because I write big, does not invalidate the objective
logic of my arguments. And you have not even responded to any of my
argument. Hence you are appealing to ignorance with the next fallacy as
follows:
Scanning it suggests that you like to stroke your ego
by fancying you're some kind of grandmaster on logic and logical
fallacies. Here you show your contentment with ignorance as you
do not study my arguments but you choose to "scan" through it - thereby
producing a limited scope fallacy. No wonder you are always attacking
straw men. You are not listening to me. You're like an intellectual baby
with his intellectual fingers in his intellectual ears going
lalalalalalal - i cannot hear you. And you later say
And if that delusion makes you feel good, more power to you. It pairs nicely with your god delusion.
Well...
my
Scanner-who-would-not-study-my-arguments-but-make-unwarranted-assumptions-about-them
... if that delusion feels good, feels more powerful, helps you sleep
well at night, helps you answer all of life's toughest metaphysical
questions of origin, meaning, purpose, morality and destiny - if you are
enjoying all those emotional crutches --- please, feel free to used
your atheistic non-existent-but-existent freewill to choose to continue
in your delusion of no-God. It does not pair nicely with you but hey ...
if the intellectual mud and poop is fine for your face - please, feel
free to use as much as you can - just don't force others to think the
way you think.
"That depends entirely on you Spanky. Are you done stroking your ego? And if so, are you ready to learn what a strawman is?" Mr
Rat. Appealling to my ego - ie, appealing to my personal incredulity -
it says NOTHING about if my arguments are right or wrong. Am I really
reading this? Like, how low can your logical rebuttal tact go? I too
could appeal to your ego and it would not be touching our logical
arguments not one bit. Whether I am a master of recognising logical
fallacies does not invalidate my logic one bit. That means that you have not been reading my arguments all this time, you have been reading my ego.
I'm sorry but the objectivity of my rational and logical discourse does
not have anything whatsoever to do with my subjective ego. I just can't
really understand you - OK OK - Calm down... let's do this better ... "respond. to. my. arguments. not. my. personality" OK? Is that clear enough for you Mr rat? Lastly,
tell me what you think about my definition of strawman - and feel free
to present your own to me if you have something better to teach me.
Nope. This
is another discussion context where I was talking about the aggressive
way you respond to "God bless you" even though it is meaningless and
pointless to you. OK - no ... you self-identify as someone who is not
affected with "God bless you". I accept that as existential evidence of
you self-identity... however, your past actions spoke contrary. But if
you say so. Ok - I reasonbly accept.
This is called wishful thinking, an essential component of your worldview. Here is wikipedia's take on wishful-thinking fallacy (3).
Wishful
thinking is the formation of beliefs and making decisions according to
what might be pleasing to imagine instead of by appealing to evidence,
rationality, or reality. It is a product of resolving conflicts between
belief and desire.[1]
So, in the "God bless you" context, you
say my conclusion that "you responded to "God bless you" with such
aggression AS IF this seemingly meaningless and seemingly pointless
kindly gesture was actually effective in your worldview" - you said my
conclusion is wishful thinking? Let us test that by the standards that
make wishful thinking REALLY wishful thinking. 1. Does it please me that you believe in God? No - not necessarily 2.
Did I appeal to evidence of how you aggressively insulted me for saying
"God bless you"? Yes - the evidence is as clear as day in this
discussion thread. 3. Do I have a rational reason to infer from the
evidence that you "might" just believe in God due to the way you
responded to "God bless you"? Yes - the aggressive evidence rationally
points to it. 4. Is the evidence/ conclusion based in reality? Oh
yeah ... all one has to do is see our past dicussions thread where I was
aggresively insulted for saying God bless you.
After analysising the criterias that make wishful thinking... did I really commit a wishful thinking fallacy? no Maybe
you are the one committing a wishful-thinking fallacy in asserting that
I am committing a wishful thinking fallacy by not demonstrating it with
concrete arguments.
(PS: Did you see the way I rebut your
argument? Maybe if you tried this once in a while, you will make
sense... for now, you are just allowing my fallacy arguments against you
to slide pass you freely ... you are looking more like the illogical
one with so much fallacies on the side of the
fidurative-debate-tennis-court - demontrate how any of my arguemnts are
wrong rather than just making baseless / blanket assertion and
argumentum ad lapidems).
Believe it or not, not everyone who mocks you is in rebellion against your god man, or in denial about his alleged existence. Red-herring
- this is because you are attempting to distract us from the
contextual-topic at hand by introducing a separate argument you believe
is easier to speak about. What has this got to do with the "God bless
you" context? Do you know how to make a rebuttal? Ok- I accept that as a
fact ... happy Mr Rat? Good
In fact, the overwhelming
majority of nonbelievers that reject your poisonous religion do so
because... (are you ready for this Spanky?) IT'S BULLSHIT. Argumentum
Ad Lapidem and Red-Herring ... not once have you addressed my
arguments. You just like talking anything without thinking right? Mr Rat
Scanner came to that conclusion by scanning through my arguments eh?
Yeah ... very logical. And thanks for speaking on behalf of every
nonbeliever - seems like you are very omniscient and you know who all
the non-believers are with absolute certainty - yeah ... very logical.
And people like you are just too dishonest and brainwashed to see it. Sweeping
Generalisatioin Fallacy... Mr Omniscient Rat. I am sorry but there are
no "people like me". I am unique. You need to read what I said to +Rolo Beorn about what Neil DeGrasse Tyson said in a video:
(R1) Time: 0:13 - 0:58I'm
not an "-ism". I just - I think for myself. The moment when someone
attaches you to a philosophy or a movement, then they assign all the
baggage and all the rest of the philosophy that goes with it to you, and
when you want to have a conversation they will assert that they already
know everything important there is to know about you because of that
association. And that's not the way to have a conversation. I'm sorry.
It's not. I'd rather we explore each other's ideas in real
time rather than assign a label to it and assert you know what's gonna
happen in advance.
Mr Tyson says to you "that's not how to have a conversation". Finally,
since you are not the only one to make fallacies so bad that I have to
write so much about them, (yet you don't debunk a simple argument but
you debunk my person - fallacious) let me end with a funny pun as I
appeal to my intentionality and try to make you laugh - this is my sole purpose: People
like me are this-honest and we have a washed-brain becaue we are not
blinded by a dirty brain - we can see it - that is to say, "dirty and
ratty brain people, cannot see it".
hahahahahahahahaha - in my subjective opinion, I'm the funniest man in the world.
+Rolo Beorn What's the point of quoting Darwin? Quoting Darwin is like quoting Newton when you're discuss gravity...it's stupid. Did you not see the NASA reference where I said
NASA
released a paper about Assumptions, Models, and the Scientific Method
and after it gave a good objective explanation of what a theory is, it
said: This does not mean that the theory is wrong, it just means that the theory has limited applicability. (1)
Are
you telling me that because I quoted the exact words of Darwin (which
is like Newton) ... and since they are not my words... are you telling
me that Darwin and Newton are stupid? Can you appeal to a proper
authority and tell me with credible reasons how you logically achieved
that conclusion. Because I don't accept blanket assertions as loically
valid. Thanks
His idea of genetics was even wrong. I
know you are not talking about genetics if not that would be a strawman.
However, you are using genetics to talk about something else - ie ...
how Darwin gets scientific things wrong. However, if you are comitting a
category mistake by using one wrong category-context (genetics) to
debunk another category-context (evolution) just because a certain
incredulous person was associated with both of them... this is a certain
kind of guilt-by-association fallacy called sweeping-generalization
fallacy. Therefore, just because darwin was wrong about genetics, does
not necessarily and convincingly connote that he was wrong about
evolution. I do not see the logical connetion. Each category-context, in
my opinion, should be assessed objective case-by-case.
Those websites/articles burst with stupidity. Blanket
Assertion and Argumentum Ad Lapidem. Please demonstrate with logically
sound premises and a coherent conclusion. Thanks. I cannot accept that
argument convincingly at facevalue. Personally, I believe that in the
"respected" case-by-case AND CategoryContext-by-CategoryContext ... the
references fulfil their independent job respectively.
They are all about religitardism. Oh wow! ALL of them? Do I really see the word all
in that assertion? Wow! ALL of them indeed. You mean like the
references of NASA. NASA is a religious-retard. How did you know? That's
why the religitard-NASA is reaching out and reaching for the stars and
mars but atheism is reaching for the pits of "nothing". Why? Atheism
makes no (positive) claims and it shouldn't even make a claim about
Science. Neil DeGrasse Tyson showed us how "science" is decreasing in
American Conincidentally with the increase of Atheism in the same era.
I'm not making a claim/ conclusion of causality... just a simple
observation and fact ... coincidentally (2). Secondly... Many
of the other links are rightly associated with people of religion but
calling them a religious retard just shows your unprovable blanket
assertions, guilt by association fallacy and ignorance about how very
not-retarded christians are. Let Neil deGrasse Tyson educate you. Here are some of his words in (3)
(R1) Time: 0:13 - 0:58I'm
not an "-ism". I just - I think for myself. The moment when someone
attaches you to a philosophy or a movement, then they assign all the
baggage and all the rest of the philosophy that goes with it to you, and
when you want to have a conversation they will assert that they already
know everything important there is to know about you because of that
association. And that's not the way to have a conversation. I'm sorry.
It's not. I'd rather we explore each other's ideas in real
time rather than assign a label to it and assert you now what's gonna
happen in advance.
or look at reference (4) of Neil deGrasse Tyson
(R2) Time 0:12 - 2:50Most
Religious people in America fully embrace science, so the argument that
religion has some issues with science applies to a smalle fraction of
those who declare that they're religious. They just happen to be a very
vocal fraction so you get the impression that there are more of them
than there actually is. It's actually the minority of religious people
who reject science or feel threatened by it or ... restrict where
science can go. The rest, you know, are just fine with science and has
been that way ever since the beginning ... there's been a happy coexistence for centuries... so this notion that ... if you're a scientist you're an atheist or if you are religious you're not a scientist, that's just EMPIRICALLY FALSE.
The
reason I gave you (R1) and (R2) is because you have added a (logically
unjustified/ unwarranted) "-ism" (namely religitardism) as a fallacious
sweeping generalisation to all my references (including that of
NASA), according to Neil, that's not how to have a conversation. I'd
rather we explore each other's ideas in real time rather than assign a
label to it and assert, you now what's gonna happen in advance. Secondly
... the idea that religous people are retards in the area of science is
empirically false. So... you see why all you have done so far today is
nothing but baseless, unwarranted, unjustifiaed assertions without a
single reference link to buttress you. Please... give a
counter-demonstration to my demonstrations. I feel like I'm the only one
making sense today and hitting homerun with the points but you are only
making unproved assertions.
Can you give an example of something science observes and can't explain? Oh with pleasure and with ease (PS:
notice the question has nothing to do with the previous 4 evidences I
gave concerning the supernatural world... but here goes) 1. Why do cows always face north or south while eating? (5) 2. How does the Placebo Effect work? 3. Why does it take more genes to make a tomoato than to make a human? 4. How liquid water very existed early in Earth’s history. 5. Why the sun’s atmosphere is so much hotter than its surface. (6) 6. Why do we yawn? 7. What are the scientific measurements of love or hate or morality? 8. What scientific experiment makes a poem beautiful or ugly? 9. Why does hot water freeze faster than ordinary water? 10. Why do negetive thought negetively affect your health? 11. Why are there more right-handed people than left-handed? (7) 12.
How do the babies of migrating animals know exactly where to migrate in
the same place their dead parents used to be? eg Monarch Butterfly
Migration 13. What began the universe? 14. What scientific
empirical data prove that my mind is not dreaming up this reality right
now or proves that I am not stuck in a matrix? 15. How did life start on earth? 16. Why is our universe so fine-tuned? 17. Why is our universe written in the language of mathematics? 18.
Why is it possible, under hypnotism, for your brain to register
experiences that do not happen to you in the external real world? For
example, the hypnotic pain of being on fire or being stabbed with a
knife
Oh and if that does not satisfy you then answer the question I posited to you earlier 19. Why does SAAAD occur when there is no-physical or no-material contact between quantum entangled objects? 20. Why is our mathematics coherent with String Theory and its 11 dimension AND super-string theory and it 11 dimensions? 21. Why are over 90% of our eminent and credible historians believing in the fact that Jesus existed? and that HE resurrected?
That's just a few. I wonder when your eyes will open to see that there are phenonmenas in science that science cannot explain.
If
God is the cause for the universe and if he intelligent designed
evolution then you should apply the scientific method on God. You're
right ... I was saying the same thing about Mr Ford - the inventor of
the ford engine. If Mr Ford is the cause of the Ford Engine and if he
intelligently designed the ford engine then you should apply the
automotive mathematical laws and formula of internal combustion to Mr
Ford. Makes pretty much more sense to me.
Also, Shakespear wrote
the book of romeo and juliet ... we should also apply the rules of paper
and ink to Mr Shakespear. Makes pretty much sense to me.
No...
just no. This is a case of bad logic. Mr Ford is not an engine and
Shakespear is not a fictional story. Also, God is much more than Science
and the scientific method does not necessarily apply to HIM. This is
what is called a Category Error/ Mistake because you make an ontological
error in which attributes belonging to the category:Science are
presented as if they belong to a different catergory:God.
is
of no-significance to me. It is meaningless and pointless because
according to my worldview, Odin is either non-existent or a demon
already defeated by Jesus - and demons cannot bless - that's like saying
"May Marriage make you a Bachelor". That is a logical contradiction
because marriage does not make you a bachelor by those intrinsic
definitions. To me, no one can truly bless except God. However, you will
not see me so aggrevated and insulting others for something so
pointless and meaningless to me. Since you guys displayed aggrevation
over "God bless you" - a concept that you deem meaningless and pointless
and inexistent in your worldview ... then you have just proven to me
that you just know, somewhere right down deep there - that you concur to
the fact that God actually exists.
If you like, get angry again to reply to this comment and prove to me all the more how much "God" really affects your reality.
1)
I've read your stuff on this thread long enough for it to register on
my bullshit meter as the pseudoscientific mumbo jumbo that it is. I
don't anticipate that improving appreciably, no matter how much
"editing" you do Sorry ... Strawman, we are not talking about "my other stuff I wrote down here long enough" ... we are talking of the immediate context where you began by quoting me
"The spiritual world exists - science proves it - and you cannot handle the truth"
The other category context we were talking of = Biblical Slavery This category context we are talking of = Proof of the Supernatural
Using
the other context to judge this context just shows that you do not know
how to follow your arguments - and end up in a slippery slope fallacy
and a Category Error. Using another context or appealing to my personal
incredulity is a totally unwarranted reason to judge the objective
credibility of the current category context arguments.
2) Do
you know what a troll is? I'm not a troll, I'm one of the original
posters on this thread, calling out the creator of this video on his
lies and disingenuity. He's too delusional and cowardly to openly
acknowledge them. Here is wikipedia's definition In
Internet slang, a troll (/ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is a person who sows discord
on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory,[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community
(such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the deliberate
intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[2] or of
otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion,[3] often for their own
amusement.
Here is a demonstration of how you responded to the argument you were trying to give: (C1)"The spiritual world exists - science proves it - and you cannot handle the truth"
And this is your response:
(C2)Thank you for demonstrating your lack of understanding of what science is.
Logically, someone who wanted to coherently debunk (C1) would say something like this
Science only deals with the natural world and not the supernatural world in my opinion
and
we could have takes a non-inflammatory, non-extraneous, non-off-topic
and mutually respective communication from there. But nooo.... you just
had to involve an Ad-Hominem and tell me how stupid I am by saying (C2).
In my opinion, coming from one unrelated topic and into this topic like
that, is what I call a troll.
3) Even if I read none of your
previous posts, the fact remains that when you make silly comments like
"The spiritual world exists - science proves it" (C3), it can be safely
concluded that you do not understand science. By who's objective
standard is C3 silly? By your subjective mind? That's a subjectivist
fallacy. Yes, that conclusion can be made based on your subjective
qualia ... this is a free country ... anybody can come to any conclusion
without an objective standard even if they use a fallacious,
irrational, hate-breathing and intolerant subjectivist fallacy.
YOUR LAST PARAGRAPH I somewhat agree with what you are saying to a degree AND you are admitting the limitations of science. Well done. HOWEVER... that statement (C1) was not suggestive of the dealings / methodology of science, but rather it was suggestive of the usefulness
of science ie, what science can be used for. For example, the
methodology of the keyboard you are typing with is for typing - simple
typing; but! the usefulness of the keyboard can be used smash someone's
face and break their teeth. Here, we see the keyboard being extruded
from the constraints of what the keyboard is concerned about into
somewhat-metaphysical-other-things the keyboard can be used to do.
Anybody that is a sentient creature can use science for many other thing - Hitler can use science to justify killing jews - Dylann Roof can use science to justify killing people in church - Theists can use it to posit the supernatural world - Scientist can use science to advocate using the ebola virus to commit madd genocide (2)
Do
you want me to go on? Or are you convinced of your strawman in your
confusion between what science is concerned about and what it can be
used to posit?
+Rolo Beorn Let me reply to this since I'm still in the mood of providing better couter-arguments to your nonsenses.
Evolution is a nice example. Evolution is an observable fact. The theory of evolution is the study of that observable fact and it contains the explanation.
NASA
released a paper about Assumptions, Models, and the Scientific Method
and after it gave a good objective explanation of what a theory is, it
said:
This does not mean that the theory is wrong, it just means that the theory has limited applicability. (1)
Yes! I agree with you that science OBSERVES many things but science does not EXPLAIN
everything it observes. I am sure that you are talking about Darwin's
Evolution Theory By Natural Selection (DETBNS). Well, I have good news
for you ... it's just a theory ... and lest you start getting in on my face on what a Scientific Theory really is... read reference (1) again and be assured that I know. Listen to what Darwin said:
"If
it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not
possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight
modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." --Charles Darwin, Origin of Species
And
hey! Guess what!? The Cambrian Explosion stands as one of the major
threats to your beloved DETBNS as there are no better counter-arguments
to support your beloved Darwin. In 1859, even Charles Darwin discussed
it as one of the main objections that could be made against the theory
of evolution by natural selection. (2) This is why another theory is
questioning the tyranny of methodological naturalism and using a much
more forensic scince approach to posit "design in evolution" - this
theory is called Evolution Theory by Intelligent Design (ETBID) which
seems to me to accurate description of the stupidity of DETBNS (3). In
fact, credible, logically thought-out and peer-reviewed scientific
papers have been produced by ETBID proponents and you can check them out
as you feel like in (4)
(not to be confused with evolution
theory by intellignet "designer" because that is not what they are
arguing for. One does not necessarily connote the other - one is a
subject (designer), the other is an object (design))
+Rolo Beorn DO NOT REPLY - BE PATIENT I'M STILL EDITING THIS AND THE ARGUMENTS ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE
FEEL
FREE TO REPLY WITH YOUR STRONGEST COUNTER-ARGUMENTS, IF NOT, JUST
ACCEPT THE FACT THAT SCIENCE IS LIMITED AND CANNOT EXPLAIN MANY NATURAL
PHENONMENONS
I showed you the evidence for the spiritual
world. It was not a proof - I am assuming that you are intelligent
enough to know the difference between "evidence" and "proof". If that
assumption is false, then check it out in a dictionary or something.
I
gave evidence for rational belief in the supernatural world in the
response I gave. You know that response right? Yeah ... the one you
appealled to your emotional subjectivity and found very "ludicrous" and
"pointless" an deleted because the arguments there were so sound, you
couldn't handle the truth.
EVIDENCES FOR THE SUPERNATURAL FIRST EVIDENCE - 1. Non-Locality OR Spooky Action At A Distance (SAAD) I
explained Spooky Action at a Distance (SAAAD) and told you that you
made a strawman - this is because I was never arguing that SAAAD is
proven science. I was arguing that SAAAD is UNEXPLAINED science. I told
you what Kip K. Sewell wrote in his book "The Cosmic Sphere" that SAAAD
means that...
...A can affect B without either touching B or
without interacting with anything touching B. That is, non-local
interactions are unmediated. A non-local
interaction can connect two locations or local objects without crossing
space between them. Einstein referred to non-locality as "spooky
action-at-a-distance" (SAAAD). Voodoo magic and other kinds of
supernatural and paranormal phenomena are often though to to be
instances of non-local phenonmenon. Imagine a witch doctorpoking a
needle into a voodoo doll, while simultaneously the person represnted by
the doll collapses in pain. This is an example where object A - the
needle in the witch doctor's voodoo doll - affects object B - the doll's
victim - without touching directly the victim or causing any physical reactions between the doll and the victim to take place.
Unlike local influences, which tend to mitigate, non-local influences are always unmitigated.
They do not weaken or diminish over distance. The remain as strong
across billions of light-years as from a few millimeters. Non-local
influences are also always immediate rather than
consecutive. There is no speed of transmission for a non-local
influence; non-local interactions are instantaneous. Hence, while local
influences are mediated and tend to be mitigated and consecutive,
non-local influences are *unmediated, unmitigated, and immediate. (1)
This
has led scientists to believe that spooky action may be controlled by
something existing beyond conventional spacetime. In other words, there
is now scientific evidence for the existence of nonmaterial reality. (2) So
before you go about debunking strawman (as you're an expert on this)
... maybe you should first listen to what I have to say. You say science
explains the unmediation, unmitigation and immediate-ness of SAAAD ...
you said in the comment you produced when you jumped the gun:
2 entangled particles behave as a single wave. and then In science you observe and study things.
My query is not the fact that we merely observe things, but that there is no coherent explanation for how these things behave.
You later said:
The study contains the explanation of the observation.
I
agree that the study contains "observation" but REALLY? It also
contains "explanation"!!!? Wow! You will be the first person to explain
this to me. Study what wikipedia has to say on the subject (3) and study
wikipedia's references if you want something more credible
_1. Quantum entanglement is a physical phenomenon... _ I am sure your are intelligent enough to know what a phenonmenon is and I do not have to give you the dictionary definition.
2. As described above, entanglement is an experimentally verified and accepted
property of nature, which has critical implications for the
interpretations of quantum mechanics. The question becomes, "How can one
account for something that was at one point indefinite with regard to
its spin (or whatever is in this case the subject of investigation)
suddenly becoming definite in that regard even though no physical interaction
with the second object occurred, and, if the two objects are
sufficiently far separated, could not even have had the time needed for
such an interaction to proceed from the first to the second object?"[44]
The latter question involves the issue of locality, i.e., whether for a
change to occur in something the agent of change has to be in physical contact
(at least via some intermediary such as a field force) with the thing
that changes. Study of entanglement brings into sharp focus the dilemma between locality and the completeness or lack of completeness of quantum mechanics.
This is my question: You are an Atheist right? You believe in materialism right? Can you justify this phenonmenon in materialism
why two objects could even begin to get entangled in the first place
when there is no-physical or no-material connection whatsoever between
them? Atheism has no answer to this. Brilliant People are already talking about *"nonmaterial reality" (2) ... maybe you topo should start believing in it.
SECOND EVIDENCE 2. - String Theory I
am going to assume again that you are a very intelligent person and you
know about Sting Theory and its 11 dimensions. These dimensions are
very coherent with our matematics. If my assumption is wrong and you are
not-intellectually knowledgable of String Theory, Rob Bryanton made a
good video to help people struggling intellectually to conceive and
understadn the extra-dimensions of String Theory. If materialism is all
that exists... why is our matematics coherent with the fact that other
greater realms could exists side by side with this reality?
THRID EVIDENCE 3. - Super String Theory (7) From the axiomatic core mathematical argument of Supersymmetry (SUSY)
(4)... if "string theory" was not sufficient for you - get a load of
this - we even have SUPER string theory amd its SUPER
extra-dimension.The SUSY Standard Model connotes that there are things
called Superpartners (5) where particles in this natural world are called sparticles in the supernatural world or electrons in this natural world are called selectrons
in the supernatural world. These are what our theorectical physicists
are saying are they desperately try to give a coherent mathematical EXPALANATION to the Higgs Boson they OBSERVED at the Large Hedron Collider (LHC). So
tell me Mr Naturalist/ Materialist ... why is it that our mathematics
is very coherent and rational to posit a Supernatural world?
FOURTH EVIDENCE 4. - Historicity Over
90% of our eminent and distinguished historians are saying that it is
rational to believe Jesus existed. Why is our history correlating MORE
to the fact that Jesus existed? Oh... here are evidences for you to chew
on (6). And the liklihood of Jesus Resurrecting shows that it is much
more rational to believe that Jesus Rose from the dead than to not. (I
can give more arguments for this if you ask).
So tell me Mr
Naturalist/ Materialist .... you said that there are explainations to
all these phenonmenons in materialistic/ atheistic language ... please
... tell me. I am waiting patiently. Don't disappoint me.
From the video: Caller: What proof and evidence do you have that Atheism is correct?
_Matt: ...Atheism ... is not accepting the God hypothesis ... it _cannot be proven to be true
The website "Logically Fallacious" defines unfalsifiabilty fallacy as:
(D1)Confidently
asserting that a theory or hypothesis is true or false even though the
theory or hypothesis cannot possibly be contradicted by an observation
or the outcome of any physical experiment, usually without strong
evidence or good reasons. Making unfalsifiable claims is a way
to leave the realm of rational discourse, since unfalsifiable claims
are often faith-based, and not founded on evidence and reason. (1)
Here are ways Christianity can be falsified so that you will not be ignorant about the Christian's position:
1. Historical Evidences of Jesus (2)
2. Cosmological Argument (3)
3. Moral Argument (4)
4. Teleological Argument (5)
5. Lots more (6)
What does the Atheist say in response? Atheist: I'm not convinced Christian: This is not about convincing your _subjectivity. This is about laying down good, strong, ground logic that is objective
from your subjectivity if not, this would be a subjectivist fallacy.
Can you please provide any better counter-arguements devoid of fallacies
so that I can scrutinise its logical objectivity?_ Atheist: Atheism is the absence of belief in God, it is not a claim for anything Christian:
Then that means that Atheism cannot make a knowledge-claim that I am
right or wrong. Then you are Agnostic. And since Atheism is just the
simple absence of believe, that definition says everything your
subjective psychology and nothing about the objective external real
world that is out there. It would have been better if Atheism was the
absence of objective evidence - but look at all those evidence.
Hence,
1. Not only is Atheism a huge unfalsifiable fallacy as per the afromentioned definition (D1), 2. Atheism is also a huge Subjectivist Fallacy 3. Atheism lacks an ontologically objective position to assert it's truth values
Here is a caricture of how the General New Atheists contradict themselves in our popular culture:
I
don't know if God exists but I know that it is wrong for you to infer a
God. I have no objective opinion on the evidence for either-side (God
or no-God) and I cannot argue against the theist position; but I'm still
gonna argue as if I know something that you are wrong to infer God. I
don't know, but I kow that the Christian is wrong irrespective of the
fact that it logically contradicts my claim that I dont know. I think
there exists the knowledge that the Christians are wrong, but I do not
have that knowledge - but I will argue as if I have that knowlege.
Although you have shown your logical burden of proof in many arguement -
i know that _ALL those arguments are objectively
wrong not because you have followed the unfallacious and credible rules
of objective logic, but because you have not satisfied nor convinced my
personal qualia subjectivity. _Hence, Atheism is ignorant of its
postion and even I really don't know if it is correct to say "I don't
know". My actions say "I know" but my words are "ignorant".
Seeing
that you are a copy-cat - i have justified myself. Feel free to copy me
again but this time if it appeases your subjectivist fallacy but do it
in favour of your atheism lol. Or you can just go away and ignore me
because if truth be told, you have no better rebuttal whatsoever. This
should be interesting ^_^
+z08840
My very good friend whom I love reading his discussions. Whoop whoop!!! I finally come back to you and now I'm able to reply you. I hope you are as excited as I am lol. Don't mind me - enough of the formalities. I just want you to know that I fully respect you and honor our discussions.
Now let us get into replying you bro :)
>This is true Scotsman argument becauseno, it's notknowledge of "more than Thomas Aquinas" is a requirement to be a "well educated student" - by definition of "well educated"learn your fallacies
HAHAHAHAHA... are you actually taking me seriously. OK OK... sorry for that. I am going to assume that you are taking me seriously. I noticed that you are more of a "science guy" than you are of a "philosophical guy" ... and I see you using the infamous Hitchen Razor saying
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."
Please, show me the evidence where it is written:
"Thou must have more knowledge than Thomas Aquinas to be called a "well educated highschool student"
Please show me the evidence if not, I dismiss it as an argumentum ad lapidem hahahaha
>Secondly, this is an argumentum ad novitatem no, it's not
OK bro... thanks for making that clear :)
>This is because you are using the present day to debunk logical credibility of the past. appeal to novelty states "it's true because it's new/modern"
learn your fallacies
Oh I greatly apologise if I was sounding ambiguous. I had just finished writing a long ass reply that day and I was very low on energy, weak and tired. So I do apologise on the ambiguity. You are a harsh scrutiniser than I expected. Not even taking into consideration the fact that I said:
hey bro... I'm gonna answer you quickly coz I gotta go. I'll reply you tomorrow if you have a counter-reply :). I'm tired and exhausted from that long ass reply hahaha.
I guess you only deserve perfection. OK... I will not reply you ambiguously this time. But I will show you the honor of of a through verbiage and logical scrutiny :) ... You want it? You get it :)
This is why I think it was argumentum ad novitatem
Simple Answer: Speculative Assumption
I know that I am not in your brain so I guess when you say that it was not your intention, then I guess that you, being the originator of your intentions, you can only be trusted :). So, as a friend to a friend, I grant you the honour and mutual respect of believing you. OK I accept.
Further Buttress
But I further noticed your last statement it's disingenuous to appeal to this corpse today
Please sir, concentrate on the last two words corpse and today Corpse: I did some research into the CONTEXT (ie Thomas Aquinas) and noticed that he died in 1274 which is a very long time ago today: In this context, I believe you meant this present day and age
So, I fully apologise for confusing what you were trying to imply. Both of us were ambiguous that day. So... by implication of Corpse to Today, I drew the speculative assumption that you were dismissing the "objective soundness" of a logically warranted argument, not by simply producing a logical counter-argument, but due to the genetic fallacy that it originated in the past and not nowadays. All this is an explanation why I speculatively assumed that you were dismissing Thomas Aquinas Efficient First Cause Argument.
So please, I humbly ask, can you re-iterate to me why you're dismissing Thomas Aquinas Efficient First Cause Argument. Thanks bro
PS: His "Argument"; not his "person" - if not, that would be an Argumentum ad hominem.
*our understanding of logic makes it not true ("how do you know?" part)our knowledge of reality makes it false ("false" part)*
(1) Thomas Aquinas VS the whole present day world
(2) Thomas Aquinas Past Day and Age VS This present Day and Age that we live in
If you meant (1) then that is an unfair parallel. Teaming the whole present day world versus 1 man is unfair and biased in my opinion.
If you meant (2), then this is a fair parallel and I credit you for it. Time VS Time sounds very unbiased to me. However, my contention here as to why you are rejecting the Credibility of the Objectivity of Thomas Aquinas LOGICAL Argument is because his time is different from our time. You give an argumentum ad lapidem because you assert this without any evidential demonstration of which premise fails to be logically fallacious other than Appealing to Ignornace that "we don't know" - which is not an a valid argument. Please follow this reference (1) and look for "Argument from Ignorance" so that you and I are on the same semantics and phraseology about the definition of an "Argument from Ignorance". An example of you using the Argument from Ignorance was when you tried debunking Thomas Aquinas Efficient First Cause Argument Premise (1) saying and I quote:
1. false 2. even if we wouldn't know it's false, how do you know it's true? assumption, premise dismissed
Hence, you dismissed the validity of a logical argument based on the assertion that it cannot be known for absolute certainty. This by definiton in Reference (1) is what we call "An Argument from Ignorance".
So, rather than falling into the same pit of appealing to ignorance that "I do not know what this guy is saying therefore, I am right and he is wrong" ... I have tried to produce to you hypothesis to genuinely try to get to know you bro and know where you stand on this argument but I do not know you for absolute certainty. I do not mean to disrespect you... we only just started getting to know each other so, yeah... I'm enjoying building this journey with you :)
Poisoning the well (also called the smear tactic) is a rhetorical technique and logical fallacy that uses the association of negative emotions to distract a subject from actual evidence in an argument. The usual method is to point out the unpleasant nature of the person making the opposing argument, in which case it is a special case of a personal attack or ad hominem. In general, "to poison the well" means to pre-provide any information that could produce a biased opinion of the reasoning, positive or negative. It can be done subtly or quite blatantly. A subtle way of poisoning the well would be to use particular adjectives in introducing something that would influence people who are about to hear an argument. In a more blatant display, someone can make an outright personal attack in an introduction. For example, asking people to remember that a person has been in prison before listening to their statements; the well is now "poisoned" because people are likely to distrust a person making an argument knowing that they're a convict, regardless of the reasoning that they put forward.
Please feel free to go and read it up for yourself in Reference (2).
Here, you have used emotional language in debunking Thomas Aquinas. You laid an accent on "Thomas Aquinas Corpse". Why was the emphasis laid on his corpse? Well, if you study Rationalwiki's take on "Emotional Appeal" (3) and study the subsection called "Emotion-baiting" where rationalwiki uses the word "hysterical woman" to show that it is pointless in the rational argument but it appeals to people's emotions to try and get the rational point across - which is a fallacy in my opinion. What I am trying to say is this:
* "What is the Rational/ Logical Connection between Thomas Aquinas Corpse and Thomas Aquinas Argument?* Does his corpse affirm or debunk his arguments in THIS CONTEXT?
Hence, this is why I consider it to be an emotional appeal.
Now you have used a negative emotion of Thomas Aquinas Corpse (as if if he were not a corpse but a living person today, that would make his arguments more rational and objective - Which I do not believe is logically valid) to distract a subject from the actual philosophical evidence (or thought experiment) in Thomas Aquinas Argument. Rationalwiki used the example of associating someone to be in prison so that people are likely to distrust him. This is not different on how you have associated Thomas Aquinas with either of my hypothesis in trying to understand you better
You have associated Thomas Aquinas:
Either of
(1) Thomas Aquinas Person or
(2) Thomas Aquinas Day and Age
with Thomas Aquinas Objective Logical Argument which makes it sound like Thomas Aquinas Objective Argument is contingent on his Person/ Corpse (ie Personal Incredulity) or his Day and Age (Genetic Fallacy) - I do not know, all this my hypothesis could be wrong, but forgive me for just assuming for now as this is progress to Scientia (4). So I hope I have made my stance in the way I am coming to understand your stance clear. If there is anything wrong, please feel free to chip in sir ^_^
Thirdly, you create a category error by equivocating Thomas Aquinas argument with Thomas Aquinas corpse.make a confession please - you pulled this nonsense right out of your ass, right?
hahahaha.... you funny guy. You jest. Ok... here is the semantics for "Category Error":
A category mistake, or category error, is a semantic or ontological error in which things belonging to a particular category are presented as if they belong to a different category,[1] or, alternatively, a property is ascribed to a thing that could not possibly have that property.(5)
The Category I was Talking about: The Soundness of Thomas Aquinas Objective Logical Argument The Category you were talking about: The Soundness of Thomas Aquinas Person - ie Corpse
The reason I call this a Category Error is because my category does not have the same properties as your category in the contextual discussion flow we are having at the moment.
This is an appeal to ignorance.number (1) is exactly opposite - it's appeal to our knowledgenumber (2) is accusation of this specific argument, namely "There is an efficient cause for everything" to be an appeal to ignorance - you are projecting much - learn your fallacies
notice your use of "projecting much" with "appeal to ignorance". What am I projecting? I assume in this context its "projecting much knowledge". However, you give the impression its unwarranted knowledge which I understand but then you later go to say the opposite of projecting-knowledge ie appealing to ignorance. This is confusing ... am I projecting knowledge or ignorance in your context?
hahahaha ... I see that you are playing with Socratic Paradox hahaha ... ipse se nihil scire id unum sciat which means I know that I know nothing
Actuality
You: even if we wouldn't know it's false, how do you know it's true? assumption, premise dismissed
Me: This is an appeal to ignorance. You used absolute certainty to debunk and assumption - this is fallacious. Just because we do not KNOW for sure does not mean that we should sit on our asses and remain ignorant. This argument is a believe or assumption or confidence or trust or suspicion of what is most likely true and not a claim to absolute knowledge.
You: ...it's appeal to our knowledge...
Caricature
You: We cannot know this is true - therefore, dismissed (1)
Me: this is appeal to ignorance (1)
You: This is appeal to knowledge
You mean the knowledge that we do not have knowledge? hahahaha ... nice one Mr Phraseology lol. Even mathematic tells us that
Positive Times Negative is Negative
(+) * ( ) = ()
So for attaching a Positive Assertion = I know; to a Negative Assertion = I don't know; you ultimately mean "I don't know". Hence, why are we playing this game of phraseology and contextual semantic dispute (6), I do not know lol. Hence, we come back to the ULTIMATE FACT that you do not know.
But if you are still going to be adamant on your proposition that you are appealing to knowledge and I am appealing to Ignorance, because you said that
number (2) is accusation of this specific argument, namely "There is an efficient cause for everything" to be an appeal to ignorance - you are projecting much
then let me show again my reply which was:
...You used absolute certainty to debunk and assumption...
Sorry for the typo error there lol. I meant an assumption lol. So much for me being tired and weary when replying you lol. OK. I did not want to end up giving you definitions and semantics because I thouht that would insult your intelligence but I have found it an utmost necessity since you scrutinize every single thing I say and almost mis-understand me into a straw man. So here goes:
Thomas Aquinas gave a
Syllogism: Logic. an argument the conclusion of which is supported by twopremises, of which one (major premise) contains the term (major term) that is the predicate of the conclusion, and the other (minor premise) contains the term (minor term) that is the subject of the conclusion; common to bothpremises is a term (middle term) that is excluded from the conclusion. A typical form is “All A is C; all B is A; therefore all B is C.”.(7)
as seen above, syllogisms contain
Premise: an *idea* or *theory* on which a statement or action is based. to base a *theory*, argument, etc. on an idea, *thought*, or *belief*: (9)
so I repeat again:
...You used absolute certainty to debunk and assumption...
Now I am not claiming that I KNOW for absolute certainty that There is an efficient cause for everything. It is a premise, belief, assumption, thought,suspicion, confidence etc
This is why when I say:
...You used absolute certainty to debunk and assumption...
I believe that you are comparing apples to oranges even though they are both fruits but its a Straw man, Category Mistake, Equivocation Fallacy and Ignoratio Elenchi. In sequitur, even though assumptions (abductions) andabsolute knowledge (deductions) are both epistemological, they are distinct in the their parts and concepts. Here is a link to the definition of Equivocation Fallacy (8) and Ignoratio Elenchi (10) so that you and I know that we are discussing on the same understanding and so that you stop accusing me for not learning my fallacies. At least, I'm doing as you've kindly advised me to do :)
So I am not "projecting much". You say this because you confuse what a "premise" is with "absolute knowledge". I believe it is much more abundantly demonstrable that there is indeed ...an efficient cause for everything...why?
Because anything that is not a first cause cannot be an efficient cause of itself.... All this is logically warranted assumptions; not logically warranted absolute knowledge :)
it's not appeal to ignorance argument - appeal to ignorance sounds like this:*_"There is an efficient cause for everything (because we don't know anything to have no cause)" - this is your with Thomas argument; besides we know there are uncaused effects :P_*
I will simply say "no". The extra part you added because we don't know anything to have no cause can be demonstrated to be false by the evidence of absence in Thomas Aquinas argument. Again Category Mistake for mistaking "premise"/ "assumptions"/ "belief" with "absolute knowledge".
Secondly, can you LOGICALLY demonstrate or GIVE REASONS why you think that effects (which are not first causes eg like God) can occur uncaused.
You can't just say a wonderful and magical statement like that and keep quiet. Extra ordinary claims rrequire extra ordinary evidences hahahaha - if not Hitchen Razor applies.
event-caused-by-other-event/event-caused-by-itselfthere is a third option (at least) - non-causedbesides "event-caused-by-itself" is nonsensical
thanks for agreeing with Thomas Aquinas and I when you say besides "event-caused-by-itself" is nonsensical because this is what Thomas Aquinas and I argue for the second half of premise 1 that nothing can be the efficient cause of itself. ... so whoop whoop yaaaaaay .... you agree halfway with Thomas Aquinas and I.
Your argument for the 3rd option is the argument we use for God. That is, God is uncaused or non-caused (which ever way you like to say it). So it seems to me that you already agree withthe logic of Thomas Aquinas and I that it is possible for uncaused entities to exist whoop whoop ... welcome to borderline-theism hehehehe ... thanks for presenting the false dichotomies - but when you think of it, you appear to be disagreeing but you ended up agreeing. Do you really believe that uncaused entities exists or are you trying to make me happy that you are starting to thing like a theist lol. In theism, uncaused entities are always necessary entities and not contingent. But it seems like, as you're a naturalist, you can show me that non-causality can occur. wow! almost sounds like magic. Like I could put my hands into a hat and bring out a rabbit without any tricks. Please, as a true naturalist, adhere to the definition of Causality (11)
Causality (also referred to as causation[1]) is the relation between an event (the cause) and a second event (the effect), where the first event is understood to be responsible for the second.
and prove to me that effects of events can occur without a responsible relationship or logical connection to a prior first cause. Show it to me and let me study, scrutinize and logically warrant it in all totality :)
disingenuouslet me alert you that any further disingenuous bullshit will result of calling you namesthank you for your understanding
I checked the dictionary for disingenuous and saw it say:
lacking in frankness, candor, or sincerity; falsely or hypocritically ingenuous; insincere:
Calling me disingenuous is a metaphysical claim. You seem to know that I know the truth but I am purposefully withholding that from you. I have 2 questions for you
1. Do you absolutely KNOW for certain that I am disingenuous? Can you really see my intentions? Can you really see my heart?
2. Do you ASSUME or BELIEVE that I am disingenuous? If so, what are the logically warranted premises that made you make that assertion?
I am so confused as to why you would blame me metaphysically. Did I do anything to you to show that I was not taking you seriously? I even took extra time to reply you after giving +K railroads a long ass reply and this is what I get? Where did I go wrong? My Chief Sunday School Teacher told me that giving analogies/ examples is a very good teaching method... heck! ... even Wikipedia (13) using credible sources such as (12) saying demonstration by using examples is a great teaching method. Did I really offend you or were you going through a bad day that day or are you becoming emotionally wrapped up in your arguments? Even if you are, shouldn't it be positive emotions? Where is the mutual respect? You may thank me for understanding but I'm sorry I do not understand. What credible repeatable methodology you used to come to the conclusion that I am disingenuous? I am sorry but I did not come here to be insulted. +carmel Kainvited me here to have a discussion and not a fighting match like you do with +Alex Spevak. Have I not been mutually repectful to you enough?
I was not being disingenuous. This argument you are bringing up is the famous Freewill-Omipotence Paradox argument or the Omniscience-Omnipotence Paradox Argument. Please read them up for yourself and see how they've been debunked (14) & (15) & (16). These articles all show 1 thing:
It has not been demonstrated by the people who present this kinda argument, how (FOR)KNOWLEDGE implies causality and denies a person the potential to do alternatively(11).
The burden of proof is on you making the claim.
There we go, simply explained without using (setup) analogies just exactly as you ordered in the menu. This should satisfy you.
So after abusing me and insulting me for creating analogies... you begin your rebuttal with an analogy? in your section called The Experiment ... I'm not pointing fingers here as to who the disingenuous one here because I have an objective moral standard that say that I should be merciful to people. This is nothing short of mafia style bullying. You tell me not to use "setups" but you end up suing the very same thing. I leave you to God.
But I will answer your premises coz that's why I'm here:
By indirect implication, I disagree with
if choice changed then X can not exist at T1, if choice didn't change then X can exist
even though I agree with it by definition of Omniscience.
You make it sound as if free will causal decisions or choices is in the ability to defy an omniscient being. Let X be the fact that i will write (JLY) in this BRACKET. If it changed and were not so, then then God cannot know that I will write (JLY) in this bracket. If it changed did not change then God did know that I would write (JLY) in this bracket all prior to this time that I would write it. What you have done is describe omniscience. Thats all. You have ignored my analogy because only you can give analogies but not others. I repeat, you have not demonstrated how (FOR)KNOWLEDGE implies causality and denies a person the potential to do alternatively.
I do not know how much on the philosophy of Free Will you have studied. But notice the implicit assumption I make regarding my definition of Free Will - ie Free will is the ability to self-originate or self-perform or self-cause the potential of other alternatives as I said in my first opening response titled FREEWILL EXISTS, AT LEAST, COMPATIBLY(17) where I gave 3 logical philosophical arguments for free will and backed it up with scientific arguments to re-affirm free will. So i beg to ask this ver important question which I really need answered:
"What is your definition of Free Will?"
My Philosophical Definitions
1.) The Origination Argument
2.) The Logical Fatalism Argument
3.) The Causal Fatalism Argument
My Scientific Back-Up
1.) Quantum Biology
2.) Eminent Experiments from Roger Sperry, Wilder Penfields etc
If you do not grant The Origination Argument, you run the risk of irresponsibly violating objective moral and duties. You may become morally irresponsible like +Alex Spevak who told me that we have locked criminals in prison falsely because they are not the originators of their actions. Hence, rapists can never really be OBJECTIVELY blamed because as Dr Richard Dawkins says
DNA just is and we dance to its music
But I leave that to your next reply. Have a wonderful day and...
Hence,
