Underlying Philosophy

quote:

---

No. All true science points towards the Immaterial Pink Unicorn as the supreme trickster and practical-joke-inspirer-of false gods-for-a-laugh

---

i like my version better. it is a much better explanation for how you can exist. i don't know any area thats immaterial

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

Excellent.The next time you personally experience god could you take a photograph or make a voice recording so that we can all be suitably enlightened?

quote:

---

The next time you personally experience god could you take a photograph or make a voice recording so that we can all be suitably enlightened?

---

your thoughts came before you typed, did you take a picture of the thought? Your skin tingles as your blood pressure rises, did you take a picture of "anger" or just the reflection of it in your face?If i told you to prove to me you were alive, what would YOU say?one bacteria said to the other " you know, we live inside of this big thing that builds things calls houses and mates and breeds like we do but lives a lot longer and builds weird things called cars." The other bacteria responded " that's crazy, take a picture of it and ill believe you."

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

Okay. This answer accounts for what things you believe to be real, although it didn't exactly answer "what is the nature of reality". But we'll work with this answer anyways. First, have you ever observed the laws of logic, or an effect of the laws of logic? You absolutely cannot account for the origin of the laws of logic without invoking the use of the same, because to use the powers of your mind (and thus think logically) to observe something (e.g., the laws of logic), is to use the laws of logic, and thus assume the existence of that which you are trying to prove exists! The worst consequence of this is that you have no way of proving where the laws of logic came from, and also that you can't prove the laws of logic exist.So of course the obvious question is this: how do I account for the laws of logic?I assume God exists, and that the Bible is true. I read Genesis and see that God created Adam in his own image, and that God spoke with Adam and reasoned with Him. From this I then know that God must have given man the ability to think logically. I also know that the laws of logic originated when God created man in His own image.Anyways, getting back to the atheist's problem with the laws of logic...I said you cannot account for the origin of the laws of logic, to which you replied that the laws of logic are merely human constructs. Does this mean that before the Greeks formalized the laws of logic (e.g., a=a), "a" wasn't always equal to "a"? Or do you admit that "a" has always been equal to "a", even before humans evolved and then formalized this truth (that a=a) into a law? Obviously, a=a has always been true, which means it was a sort of "law" before humans even existed. Obviously then, a=a is not a human construct. Although the symbols and the idea of a symbol representing a particular object etc. are human constructs, there was never a point in time where one object was not equivalent to itself.So how can an atheist account for the origin of the laws of logic?Here is another example that is a little more difficult to deal with than a=a.Here is a law of logic that was formalized by the Greeks: if p then q, p is true, so q must be true.Now don't you think that the Greeks may have actually invoked the use of this law in order to formalize it? Perhaps they looked at examples of this law around them, and saw that whenever this law was followed, correct conclusions were made. They then concluded that the law was valid.But don't you see how they are using this law of logic? They have a premise that goes something like this: "if something (e.g., aforementioned law of logic) is observed to be true numerous times, then that something (aforementioned law of logic) is valid".So in order to validate the law of logic I gave as an example, they must first use that law of logic. So what they are doing is presuming that the law of logic I mentioned is true before they have proved it to be true. So if the Greeks didn't make up that law of logic, who did? The big bang?...Edited by sac51495, : No reason given.

I'm not sure what you think that proves.The laws of logic are a human construct. Where's the problem?

They're an abstraction. What I have observed is that logic works: correct application of logic to correct premises leads to correct conclusion. Except that, as I have pointed out, many people do not have that ability, or have it imperfectly. There are simple questions in logic which over 90% of people get wrong.Nice going, God.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

quote:

---

First, have you ever observed the laws of logic, or an effect of the laws of logic?

---

You do not observe abstractions, nor do abstractions have effects.

quote:

---

So of course the obvious question is this: how do I account for the laws of logic?

​

I assume God exists, and that the Bible is true. I read Genesis and see that God created Adam in his own image, and that God spoke with Adam and reasoned with Him. From this I then know that God must have given man the ability to think logically. I also know that the laws of logic originated when God created man in His own image. (more later).

---

In other words you have a very bad epistemology, which relies a huge number of unnecessary assumptions. Even worse, your "account" not only fails to deal with the formalised laws of logic (so I guess we have to credit the pagan Greeks with those) it also doesn't explain the important thing - which is why logic
works. So your "account" would be worthless even if it was true - and there are good reasons to think that it is not.You aren't exactly making a good case for your worldview here.

My emotions and thoughts exist only in my own mind. They have no existence independently of, or externally to , my mind. If you are likewise saying that god exists nowhere but in the minds of men I can only agree. How do you prove anything? The next time I take a dump I will look into the bowl afterwards and smile for the camera.Say - "Cheese".

Hi sac. When you ask about morals, most atheists will say that morals ar relative to teir cultures because that is obviously how it appears. If morals were not relative, everyone would have the same morals. To counteract this, you say: So, basically, it comes down to this. We say morals are human derived and relative because that's how it looks. You say morals come from god, and the proof of that is that they look exactly the same as if they were created by man and relative. You're adding complexity with no justified reason for doing so beyond your sincere desire for there to be a god, and wanting that, you and others find some way to shoehorn the fact that the world doesn't look like there is a god with there being a god anyway.

No. There are those who think quite illogically, in fact. Many of these people are religious, it's a strange but significant corellation.The laws of logic were reasoned out by our ancestors as the best way to think based on tria and error. Thinking logically lends itself to protecting you from death or injury. Thinking illogically usually ends up with you being some other animal's lunch. Once it had been determined, thorugh observation and experience, that logic is the best way to think, it was then used as the basis for higher leve thoughts. It's a bottom up methodology rather than a top down one.Logic has been shown to be superior to illogic in every way we can determine to test it. If you can show me some other way of thinking that works better, I'd love to learn it. You'd probably also win a Nobel Prize for it, so you have every reason to come up with one. Indeed, everyone on the planet has every reason to come up with one. The fact that, so far, no one has succeeded is also quite indicativeof logic's superiority, dontcha think?

I started from the standpoint that there was a god. I then interpreted everything aorund me and noticed there wasn't any evidence for the god, no reason to assume a god, and indeed many reasons not to...at least the Christian god.

cheeeeeeese lol. oh btw, is the vacuums pull against matter included in equations for gravitational interactions? or is it ignored?

quote:

---

My emotions and thoughts exist only in my own mind. They have no existence independently of, or externally to , my mind.

---

You could be wrong. matter and life are both independent and dependant with thought and emotions in living things.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

Vacuum has no "pull."You think you know what vacuum is but, even having been told, you still haven't a clue. Message 190He isn't.

I added more to my message #349.

God most certainly does provide an explanation for the reliability of memory, and a very simple one at that: He created us that way.This explanation I gave provides a model that would make sense out of the reliability of our memory, while you don't even have a model. You just assume that your memory is reliable, but never given a reason why.Now of course we all have to assume that our memory is reliable; this is obvious. But I have given a reason why our memories are reliable, and you have not.