Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Which is pretty surprising considering the imagination required in metaphysics.
Ah That's becasue Mystic thinks he is arguing philsophy. He isn't he is arguing Theism. Philosophy says 'check the parameters'. Theist apologetics says 'assume the parameters on faith'. Thus Mystic can argue until his tongue shears a pin, he is never going to be arguing sound logic. Even if his individual argument are sound, which they often aren't.
I pretty early on found what appeared to be a serious difference between the philosophical def. of materialism (th doctrine that everything is material and everything can be explained in those terms' and the practical, scientific materialism that of course atheists use, just like anything that science can validate (where not human constructs, like Law) .
There (and I find it a constant source of wonder that Mystic doesn't get this, especially since I have explained it many times) what science has validated about the way the world works does not need a god. It is either know, or unknown. Unknown does not mean 'It must be a god' It means, 'we haven't found the answer yet'. Atheism (and science, I suppose) can't rule out what the explanation is (whether we find it or not), but not assuming the answer first (Mystic's basic Faith -based error) means that we remain agnostic about what the answer will be (give or take plausible hypothetical mechanisms, like abiogenesis (1) should we ever find it. And agnosticism, mandates non belief in the absence of convincing evidence.
The atheist basis in materialism as a default -position is rock solid, scientifically and logically, no matter what philosophical jiggery -pokery he wants to engage in.
As I say, I have explained this before and it gets really tedious that he keeps popping up with the same olf arguments
(1) and a footnote! which is got to be worth a few point when Theism can come up with nothing better as a counter -explanation than God waving a magic wand.
Yes. Essentially Mystic straw-manned the atheist position. Possibly because he used the Philosophical definition of materialism, which shocked me by its untenable dogmatism the first time I heard it. But more probably because he reasons from a Faith-based position and can't imagine one that isn't.
My imagination is fine, Arq. You have always been unable to parse my scientific arguments from my belief-based ones. I suspect it is because you do not understand the science-based ones and prefer to argue against the faith-based ones.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry Diogenes
I ask myself if they use the word materialism because classical materialism is dead. In that way, they can imply that atheism relies on an outdated concept.
The only difference between us and theists (presuming a first cause) is that they say what existed at the beginning was intelligent. After all, even a god must be made of something. So they can not refute our version of materialism (whatever that may be) without refuting their own position.
First cause arguments are a relic of Creator memes. Once you equate God with Reality as a living consciousness the notion of a Creator and all its infinite regresses disappears. God needs no Creator any more than Reality (or Nature or Universe or Multiverse) do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
Ah That's because Mystic thinks he is arguing philosophy. He isn't he is arguing Theism. Philosophy says 'check the parameters'. Theist apologetics says 'assume the parameters on faith'. Thus Mystic can argue until his tongue shears a pin, he is never going to be arguing sound logic. Even if his individual argument are sound, which they often aren't.
Says the self-described non-philosopher who admits not grasping fundamental concepts and issues.
Quote:
I pretty early on found what appeared to be a serious difference between the philosophical def. of materialism (the doctrine that everything is material and everything can be explained in those terms' and the practical, scientific materialism that of course, atheists use, just like anything that science can validate (where not human constructs, like Law) .
There (and I find it a constant source of wonder that Mystic doesn't get this, especially since I have explained it many times) what science has validated about the way the world works does not need a god. It is either know or unknown. Unknown does not mean 'It must be a god' It means, 'we haven't found the answer yet'. Atheism (and science, I suppose) can't rule out what the explanation is (whether we find it or not), but not assuming the answer first (Mystic's basic Faith-based error) means that we remain agnostic about what the answer will be (give or take plausible hypothetical mechanisms, like abiogenesis (1) should we ever find it. And agnosticism mandates non-belief in the absence of convincing evidence.
The atheist basis in materialism as a default -position is rock solid, scientifically and logically, no matter what philosophical jiggery-pokery he wants to engage in.
I find it a constant source of wonder that Arq doesn't get this, especially since I have explained it many times that "what science has validated about the way the world works" does not eliminate a god because it says nothing about what the "world" IS that is "working" as science describes. This means you remain agnostic about what Reality IS not assume an absurd default about what it is NOT!
Quote:
As I say, I have explained this before and it gets really tedious that he keeps popping up with the same old arguments.
As I say, I have explained this before and it gets really tedious that he keeps popping up with the same old arguments.
Quote:
(1) and a footnote! which is got to be worth a few points when Theism can come up with nothing better as a counter -explanation than God waving a magic wand.
It is beneath your intellect to use that old saw, Arq. I have never made any such claims and you know I do not entertain magical or supernatural explanations for anything.
My imagination is fine, Arq. You have always been unable to parse my scientific arguments from my belief-based ones. I suspect it is because you do not understand the science-based ones and prefer to argue against the faith-based ones.
First cause arguments are a relic of Creator memes. Once you equate God with Reality as a living consciousness the notion of a Creator and all its infinite regresses disappears. God needs no Creator any more than Reality (or Nature or Universe or Multiverse) do.
You have not been able to parse them yourself, old son. You have have been caught fiddling science to fit in with your beliefs, and have always denied that you were.
Quote:
Says the self-described non-philosopher who admits not grasping fundamental concepts and issues.
I find it a constant source of wonder that Arq doesn't get this, especially since I have explained it many times that "what science has validated about the way the world works" does not eliminate a god because it says nothing about what the "world" IS that is "working" as science describes. This means you remain agnostic about what Reality IS not assume an absurd default about what it is NOT! As I say, I have explained this before and it gets really tedious that he keeps popping up with the same old arguments. It is beneath your intellect to use that old saw, Arq. I have never made any such claims and you know I do not entertain magical or supernatural explanations for anything.
You vaunted expertise in philosophy does you no good when you throw basic logic such as the burden of proof, assuming what you are trying to prove as a 'given' and the principle of parsimony in the bin when it doesn't support your beliefs.
And you strawmanned again with ""what science has validated about the way the world works" does not eliminate a god because it says nothing about what the "world" IS that is "working" as science describes. This means you remain agnostic about what Reality IS not assume an absurd default about what it is NOT!"
Nothing that we know rules out a god, nor does what we know prove one. I can't put it any better than you put it here " As I say, I have explained this before and it gets really tedious that he keeps popping up with the same old arguments." I have, you keep doing it, and it is,
The OP mentioned Santa as well as the Easter Bunny and while I agree that the bunny/god or Bigfoot/god comparisons are likely to be ineffective, Santa Claus does strike me as an appropriate peer.
Santa and the Christian god are basically the same creature. Mysterious, invisible, all knowing entity monitors our every thought and deed, and issues rewards or punishments accordingly. If you pass the ethereal thought police test, you get heaven/toys, if you fail you get hell/coal in your stocking.
So, not believing in that god is very much kin to not believing in Santa
I agree. Santa is just so beloved, universal, historically based, a moral motivator and a mighty asset to commerce AND starred in almost as many films as Jesus, that I'm not surprised that The Biblesuckers scream "Whose Bloody Holiiday IS this, anyway?"
First cause arguments are a relic of Creator memes. Once you equate God with Reality as a living consciousness the notion of a Creator and all its infinite regresses disappears. God needs no Creator any more than Reality (or Nature or Universe or Multiverse) do.
And as an intelligence just existing is most improbable, then a natural universe or multiverse is the rational option.
And as an intelligence just existing is most improbable, then a natural universe or multiverse is the rational option.
I agree. What the Cosmic -Minders don't seem to get is that we know how electricity, bricks, metal, hydrogen gas, fossil fuels and fire works, and it doesn't matter that we can't explain matter down to the last nano -particle. That we understand how it works without any god being needed means that the burden of proof falls on the believer to give us any good evidence that Cosmic Intelligence is involved. This is precisely what we don't get and all we get are faith -claims and efforts to make it look as though God is a Given that atheists have to disprove. It isn't.
Why, exactly is it more improbable than a universe or multiverse just existing????
Because Matter that is (on recent evidence) nothing that acts as though it is Something is more probable than a complex and powerful cosmic mind that didn't need to come from anywhere.
Because Matter that is (on recent evidence) nothing that acts as though it is Something is more probable than a complex and powerful cosmic mind that didn't need to come from anywhere.
But haven't you described precisely what the imagination of a consciousness is able to do????
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That's becasue Mystic thinks he is arguing philsophy. He isn't he is arguing Theism. Philosophy says 'check the parameters'. Theist apologetics says 'assume the parameters on faith'. Thus Mystic can argue until his tongue shears a pin, he is never going to be arguing sound logic. Even if his individual argument are sound, which they often aren't. 
which is got to be worth a few point when Theism can come up with nothing better as a counter -explanation than God waving a magic wand.
