God caused or uncaused?

Rob, I didn't. You said: This means any alleged sensory perception is a philosophical construct & not proof of anything. I could punch you full in the face whilst fully concious & according to you you have no proof that I punched you in the face!Give me your bank account number, I'll empty your account & you will have no proof it was me, despite the funds going from your account to mine. This makes no sense, your observations aren't proof of anything regardless of whether your propositions are consistent or not. Secondly, the bible is only externally consistent with trivial history, none of it's fantastic claims are externally consistent. So all you have is internal consistency.I may as well say, I have my observations & Watership Down, therefore I am both internally & externally consistent. It's meaningless. Let's get this straight, you are seriously trying to tell me that something you can not demonstrate exists (because it is a philosophical construct)is externally coherent? How do you know without empirically derived evidence of its content? In order to know the bible exists you need to have had some sensory perception of it, in other words, you have to be an empiricist, but then it becomes internally incoherent, according to you, & therefore invalid.You are hoisted on your own petard.MarkEdited by mark24, : No reason given.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

Rob, Yeah, but you said that empiricism immediately becomes internally coherant. Getting information via your senses is empiricism, so your senses telling you anything is internally incoherent.It doesn't matter whether you are holding a bible or a glass of water, you just can't tell, it's incoherent logic acording to you. Like I said, you are hoist by your own petard. As far as you are concerned, the notion that the bible exists is internally incoherent & your argument vanishes in a puff of your own illogic.Mark

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

Rob, Yes you did. You empirically have evidence that you are holding a bible in your hand, you can feel it & touch it. This is empiricism. According to your first statement above, empiricism is immediately internally invalid. The only way you know you are holding a bible is empirically. So you did say holding a bible is internally incoherent, you just didn't realise the corollory of your own statements.But since you admit: As far as you are concerned the bible is as assumed as the rest of the world because of your philosophical assumptions. Any attempt to empirically have evidence of the bible is immediately internally incoherant.Empiricism is internally coherant or it isn't. You say it isn't, so any attempt to make statements about the world via your own senses is internally incoherent.MarkEdited by mark24, : No reason given.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

Rob, No, as far as I'm concerned you are talking bollocks. Really. None of it makes sense. What does this mean? What does this mean? No, we don't. Empirical is data derived via our senses, regardless of whether they agree with our internal coherence, whatever that is, or not. If the latter disagrees with the former, then the former wins, your internal coherence, whatever that is, is wrong. All your daughter knows about the world is empirically derived evidence.Mark

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

Rob,Please define coherence. Specifically internal & external coherence. No evidence & wrong philosophy = incoherence in creationisms case. I gave examples where it did, ergo, your own internal philosophy is incoherent.MarkEdited by mark24, : No reason given.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

Rob,For clarification, internal coherence/construct is the theory, external coherence is the reality we try to make the internal coherence match to? No, creationists ignore it when it doesn't suit them.MarkEdited by mark24, : No reason given.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

Rob,Please answer the questions.1/ For clarification, internal coherence/construct is the theory, external coherence is the reality we try to make the internal coherence match to?If not, please state exactly why not, I'm not interested in statements like "very sophisticated philosophers have pulled the wool over your eyes".2/ Please define coherence. Specifically internal & external coherence.I don't want to "answer that for myself", I want you to define your terms.Mark

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

Rob, It would have saved a lot of time if you'd just argued that your evidence is better than mine without all that red herring nonsense about coherence.So, we are basically having an evidence based discussion, yes?Mark

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

Rob, But it's neither here nor there. You could have said we were having an evidence based discussion a la the scientific method & the result, when we get to it, would be exactly the same. All you have done is to insist you reword the scientific method without changing it & thereby wasted everybodies time. This is message 160+ & we have yet to begin.We are having an evidence based discussion, yes or no?Mark

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

Rob, Excellent, please present your evidence that there is a god, then we can ask whether it was caused, or not. No, evidence is reached by observation, conclusions are reached by inference.Mark

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

Rob,All you have done is present some scientific facts, where's the evidence of god?Mark

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

Rob, Nope, it could have come about naturally.The existence of "reality" is the thing we are trying to explain, its existence alone tells us nothing about how it came to be. If it tells us nothing then it can't be considered evidence of anything.Again I ask, where is this evidence of god?Mark

Rob, Exactly. Merely stating the existence of logic doesn't mean it was created by god, it could have been created by god, but as you seem to agree, could have doesn't cut it. 1/ Logic isn't self affirming, it can get it wrong, I've already furnished you with a logically valid argument that is wrong, & an invalid one that is correct.2/ Logic exists because we made it, it is merely the minimum level of consistency required for propositions to even be considered. If you want to claim that god made logic, then you need evidence. Except you, it seems.Your evidence of god is the baseless assumption that logic always existed ("it never came to be, it simply is"). Let me dispense with the obvious logical flaw here, if logic always existed, then it didn't need to be created & therefore isn't evidence of god. Clearly you meant god created it, but since I can state with equal veracity that it is human made or even that it actually did always exist. In other words, the existence of logic isn't evidence of god.Mark

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

Rob, You have no evidence of this, you just assert it. And like I've said before, logic does lie, logically valid arguments can be wrong, & invalid ones right, so not even another baseless assertion, an assertion contradicted by evidence. I'm saying logic was made, & with as much veracity as you, ie. none, this is why what YOU say isn't evidence. Like you said, "could have" doesn't cut it.Is this it, no evidence of god whatsoever, just vacuous assertions?MarkEdited by mark24, : No reason given.Edited by mark24, : No reason given.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

Rob, Not me, I said logic can lie, in contradiction to you saying it couldn't. Not necessarily.My great-grandmother lived until she was 93, she smoked cigarettes like a trooper all her life. She lived well beyond the average life expectancy. Smoking is therefore good for you. There you have & internal & external test cohere, it is valid logic, & it is also wrong. Your point?Back on topic, my point is that you have nothing that meets the standard of "matching the external test". This is called evidence, please provide some.MarkEdited by mark24, : No reason given.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't