U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 07-04-2019, 02:02 AM
 
40,034 posts, read 26,715,004 times
Reputation: 6047

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by phetaroi View Post
First of all, that's not what I was responding to, and you know it. But you wanna move the goal posts. But, as to that, you said, "you have no grounds for denying that God exists as the Source of everything".

What I was responding to was that you think that what you believe is "indisputable fact".
What I believe is not indisputable fact. But that there is a source of everything that exists is indisputable fact. Beliefs have nothing to do with it. What IS the source if not God minimally speaking?

 
Old 07-04-2019, 02:13 AM
 
39,014 posts, read 10,812,637 times
Reputation: 5080
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clintone View Post
The PDF is 604 pages. It can be found here:

https://www.difa3iat.com/wp-content/...ookZZ.org_.pdf

I wasn't too fond of what Plantinga said...but I liked Richard Dawkn's statement here:

All appearances to the contrary, the only watchmaker in nature is the blind forces of physics, albeit deployed in a very special way.
A true watchmaker has foresight: he designs his cogs and springs, and plans their interconnections, with a future purpose in his mind’s eye. Natural selection, the blind, unconscious automatic process which Darwin discovered, and which we now know is the explanation for the existence and apparently purposeful form of all life, has no purpose in mind. It has no mind and no mind’s eye. It does not plan for the future. It has no vision, no foresight, no sight at all. If it can be said to play the role of watchmaker in nature, it is the blind watchmaker.19



I noticed that Plantinga didn't really have much of a response to that. He basically just said that there's nothing implying that the process was unguided because God could have just intended everything to be the way it turned out.


Plantinga totally ignores the emphasis of Richard Dawkins's message: yeah, I suppose it could have been intelligently designed...but that's not the kind of environment that seems like it was. That is the sign that it was unguided.


Plantinga mentions that Richard Dawkin's ignores John Locke's claim of the following: Among those he ignores, for example, is John Locke’s claim that “it is as impossible to conceive that ever pure incogitative Matter should produce a thinking intelligent Being, as that nothing should of itself produce Matter.”


Plantinga ignores that John Locke's claim clearly should be ignored...because John Locke didn't state anything of substance. He just made an assertion. What's more, there very statement he makes implies that he shouldn't believe a God made that stuff happens either...but he doesn't really get that.


And that's where I stopped reading. That's why I typically avoid reading philosophy either. I don't want to wade through 600 pages by Plantinga after Richard Dawkins...who isn't even a philosopher, just stomped Plantinga into the ground in Plantinga's own article.
You have put your finger on the problem. Plantinga is of course an expert in philosophy. But Godfaith has screwed his head up so badly that even laybods can trund him.

Mystic will recall...ah no, he probably won't..an article on atheism by Plantinga which i filletted and even he had to grudgingly admit that it wasn't 'Plantinga's best'. You noted the basic fallacies of Faith -based thinking. 'all the evidence for natural mechanisms doesn't disprove a god'. The retreat to appeal to incredulity should discredit him entirely, but in fact it convinces a lot of people - especially the religious ones who (using double standards) dismiss any incredulity about theist, religious and Bible -claims with 'who knows what is possible?'

And i see that Mystic's hi-jacked the thread for his pet theory yet again.
 
Old 07-04-2019, 03:49 AM
 
13,450 posts, read 4,976,974 times
Reputation: 1363
Quote:
Originally Posted by phetaroi View Post
First of all, that's not what I was responding to, and you know it. But you wanna move the goal posts. But, as to that, you said, "you have no grounds for denying that God exists as the Source of everything".

What I was responding to was that you think that what you believe is "indisputable fact".
his is based on

youtube: "how small is it 05"

whats your claim based on? you being mistreated and not getting your way?

who the heck are we, in the middle, to believe more? I think you stuck in the classic argument of "what is a better car? GTO or a corvette?'

you can argue semantics, I get that, but whats your data to say that the system of life around us is not responsible for us being here?
 
Old 07-04-2019, 03:53 AM
 
13,450 posts, read 4,976,974 times
Reputation: 1363
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER View Post
You have put your finger on the problem. Plantinga is of course an expert in philosophy. But Godfaith has screwed his head up so badly that even laybods can trund him.

Mystic will recall...ah no, he probably won't..an article on atheism by Plantinga which i filletted and even he had to grudgingly admit that it wasn't 'Plantinga's best'. You noted the basic fallacies of Faith -based thinking. 'all the evidence for natural mechanisms doesn't disprove a god'. The retreat to appeal to incredulity should discredit him entirely, but in fact it convinces a lot of people - especially the religious ones who (using double standards) dismiss any incredulity about theist, religious and Bible -claims with 'who knows what is possible?'

And i see that Mystic's hi-jacked the thread for his pet theory yet again.
lmao ... hijacked ... thats funny.

if its preaching your sect of atheism its exposing people to the great truth, your truth. when its offering another alternative its hijacking.

how about listing your properties of the system next to the properties he is assigning and see where they are the same, see what ones line up with whats in science textbooks.
 
Old 07-04-2019, 04:00 AM
 
13,450 posts, read 4,976,974 times
Reputation: 1363
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
What I believe is not indisputable fact. But that there is a source of everything that exists is indisputable fact. Beliefs have nothing to do with it. What IS the source if not God minimally speaking?
lmao, they use "you arrogant", "thats apologetic", "thats woo", and "if your not with us youre against us" as the data points for their beliefs. they have to shun, minimize, and obscure the information we use to make our claims.

"how small is it 05" is a great, quick, intro to why we say the things we say. We do not use "we feel religion is dangerous." to base our claims on.

remember when we went side by with trans? his response to me use "thats bad for atheism.", "thats the worst thing you can do for the atheist cause."?

lmao ... and when i said I don't answer to atheism, I answer to "how some is it 05" ... he shunned me?

Trans's sect of atheism will not separate bad people from how the universe works. And when we do, he lays a ton of convoluted logic on us to "show us his real truth.'

tran's sect of atheism is on a crusade, and the rest of us be damned.
 
Old 07-04-2019, 05:44 AM
 
Location: WV and Eastport, ME
11,172 posts, read 10,989,569 times
Reputation: 7412
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
What I believe is not indisputable fact. But that there is a source of everything that exists is indisputable fact. Beliefs have nothing to do with it. What IS the source if not God minimally speaking?
You said: "But that there is a source of everything that exists is indisputable fact."

That is NOT an indisputable fact. There's really nothing more to be said about it. You believe there is a source for everything. Some other people do not. It's not testable. There's no way to prove there is a source for everything. Therefore it's no an "indisputable fact." It is, in fact, disputable, because it is disputed.
__________________
Moderator posts are in RED.
City-Data Terms of Service: http://www.city-data.com/terms.html
 
Old 07-04-2019, 05:57 AM
 
Location: california
5,656 posts, read 4,875,766 times
Reputation: 6681
What people seem to forget is that God is not limited to man's science. Often His interventions are in contrast with science.
I have seen and experienced many a healing contrary to science and medicine a result of God's intervention.
I have prayed or rain an received it and prayed the rain stopped and it stopped .Not eventually but at the moment I asked. God gives preference to those that love and obey Him.
God is not manipulated .
So though there are some factors of science man is limited to ,God is not bound to them.
 
Old 07-04-2019, 05:59 AM
 
13,450 posts, read 4,976,974 times
Reputation: 1363
Quote:
Originally Posted by mensaguy View Post
You said: "But that there is a source of everything that exists is indisputable fact."

That is NOT an indisputable fact. There's really nothing more to be said about it. You believe there is a source for everything. Some other people do not. It's not testable. There's no way to prove there is a source for everything. Therefore it's no an "indisputable fact." It is, in fact, disputable, because it is disputed.
there is not indisputable fact that there are sources for everything?

now that is an extraordinary claim ... what your evidence?

I say the quest for the theory of everything points to your stance as less valid than his claim. i don't care that some people claim "there is no source", thats like "my-god-only" is the source.
 
Old 07-04-2019, 06:12 AM
 
Location: Florida
19,774 posts, read 19,875,860 times
Reputation: 23184
Quote:
Originally Posted by mensaguy View Post
You said: "But that there is a source of everything that exists is indisputable fact."

That is NOT an indisputable fact. There's really nothing more to be said about it. You believe there is a source for everything. Some other people do not. It's not testable. There's no way to prove there is a source for everything. Therefore it's no an "indisputable fact." It is, in fact, disputable, because it is disputed.
But remember, Mystic calls nature "god", so technically there is A source. Just that, even though he claims not to attach any other attributes to 'it', he does. That's where the disagreements arise.
Other than the screwing around with semantics, of course.
 
Old 07-04-2019, 06:55 AM
 
13,450 posts, read 4,976,974 times
Reputation: 1363
exactly cold.

since I don'r care what the answer is in terms of god and religion I left looking at the two claims.

a source or no source.

well ... thats a done deal ... lets move on.

semantics is for other people, I just care about kind of stuff.
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.


Closed Thread


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top