Does the existence of physical laws in the universe require a God explanation?

[monumentus]

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

You are a broken record.

Same answer. If you consistently claim there is a god and consistently fail to offer any substance to that claim then I can only consistently point this out. There is no way to say anything different so you will hear the same reply from me again and again.

As such if I am a broken record it is only because I am being played on a broken record player.

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

the mandate that the universe be conscious because we are.

Which again you just assert and run. That is the problem. Again I can not refute this because you have not given it any substance. You just say it and leave it at that. For all your claims to be a philosopher you do not seem to grasp one of the simple philisophical truths which is that simply saying something does not make it true.

Which means you are claiming there is a god - but not substantiating that thus not giving anything to refute - and then later attempting to substantiate it by another claim which you are also not substantiating - therefore not giving anything to refute.

It is politics therefore and not science or philiosophy we are engaged in here. You simply stick to unrefutable assertions because there is no substance to refute - and then continue to play your own broken record of claiming no one is refuting you. Which of course they are not, given there is nothing _there_ to refute. Just bald assertions you make and back up with nothing except the occasional "Go google it".

Again:

1) Make a claim that is not backed up by anything so there is nothing there to be refuted.
2) Wait for someone to point out there is no back up to be refuted.
3) Get sarky that the user in step 2 did not refute anything.
4) Add whatever sighs and head slap smilely you think makes you look good.
5) Run.

[MysticPhD]

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

You are a broken record. You harp on my BELIEFS about God . . . but you ignore the philosophical basis of them . . . the mandate that the universe be conscious because we are. You seem not to be even aware such philosophical arguments exist . . . let alone be able to counter them with your own.

Originally Posted by monumentus

Same answer. If you consistently claim there is a god and consistently fail to offer any substance to that claim then I can only consistently point this out. There is no way to say anything different so you will hear the same reply from me again and again.
As such if I am a broken record it is only because I am being played on a broken record player.

Read the bold and then explain to me how I am to make up for that apparent deficit in your understanding of the philosophical arguments about consciousness.

[MysticPhD]

Originally Posted by SeekerSA

The answer is 42 and if you don't like that you can take that up with two dead white mice whose last words were "Oh crap..."

I enjoyed Hitchhiker too.

[monumentus]

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

Read the bold and then explain to me how I am to make up for that apparent deficit in your understanding of the philosophical arguments about consciousness.

And as usual back to not presenting evidence but talking about everyone elses deficits and ignorances. It really is one of three approaches from you every time isn't it.

However if you are not presenting any evidence for your claims then I am not sure how repasting things you have said before adds anything to the conversation. Adding bold to your text does not magically mean there is evidence there.

You have not presented any arguments, so harping on that people are ignoring those arguments hardly helps.

[KCfromNC]

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

You are a broken record. You harp on my BELIEFS about God . . . but you ignore the philosophical basis of them . . . the mandate that the universe be conscious because we are. You seem not to be even aware such philosophical arguments exist . . . let alone be able to counter them with your own.

Implying that an argument may exist in favor of your position is a far cry from actually producing and supporting that argument and showing how it specifically relates to the discussion in question. So far, I'm seeing lots of the former and very little, aside from random invocations of science buzzwords, of the latter.