*Originally posted by Teg
I can see you put much time into this unthought.*
More than you put into responding.
If you're an unbeliever than you don't believe anything at all.
What you think you "believe" is untrue, therefore you believe in nothing.
IOW, you do not believe anything.
You are simply unaware of the nature of deception which you failed to take into account in your personal philosophy.
*It is if you follow probabilities.*
Sucker!
That is merely another way of saying no one ever wins a lottery since the weight of probability is that you don't.
I think I've mentioned it before; you are very weak in math and logic.
*Consider: how many of your beliefs would you still have if you grew up on a different plan free from religious beliefs?*
Since I did grow up on a different plan free from religious beliefs, I'd have all of them.
You simply think that Christians are born.
Well, no one is born Christian.
Everyone has to be converted to Christianity.
*Only Tony1 logic concludes that.*
As I said, your grasp of logic is very weak.
*A god cannot be percluded, thus a god exists.
That is also a false use of logic. *
No one believes in God on that basis, however, as you can see yourself (maybe), God cannot be precluded.
*Originally posted by Bebelina
you all seem to argue mostly for the discussions sake and also to show off your logic skills*
So far, anyone on this forum attempting to "show off" their logic skills has merely succeeded in demonstrating their weakness in it.
*Originally posted by Cris
Everything is physical. No one has ever shown that there is anything else.*
No one has shown that everything is physical, either.
Humor, justice, happiness are just a few things that cannot be demonstrated to be physical, even though there is no shortage of materialists willing to merely assert that they are.
*Originally posted by Sir. Loone
You all have an IMMORTAL SOUL & SPIRIT! You will be alive and awake in the chambers of HELL!*
You should quit just ignoring the Bible.
Souls are not immortal.
The soul that sinneth, it shall die. ...
(Ezekiel 18:20, KJV).
That is the BIBLE saying that souls die.
For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten.
(Ecclesiastes 9:5, KJV).
That's the BIBLE saying that the dead don't know anything.
They will be ashes.
And ye shall tread down the wicked; for they shall be ashes under the soles of your feet in the day that I shall do this, saith the LORD of hosts.
(Malachi 4:3, KJV).
Those are quotes out of the BIBLE.
*Originally posted by Bambi
Without any further basis for judging absolute correctness, everything we ever knew or thought could turn out to be wrong in absolute terms*
I'm glad you see that.
Many atheists fight tooth and nail against admitting that because of the implications of that statement.
*It does not prevent me from being right about all those things that my thought is capable of encompassing at the moment.*
While you are literally correct in saying that, you could be right while suspecting that you might be wrong, you could be just guessing exactly right, you could be completely wrong, i.e. you'd never know whether you were right or wrong.
See your previous statement.
*Practicality is one criterion.*
That is one good criterion.
However, over what length of time do you determine practicality?
After all, in just viewing only posts from this thread alone, it is easy to see that some people argue from practicality on a post-by-post basis, not realizing that they are shooting themselves in the foot in terms of their overall ability to make a point.
I, on the other hand, determine practicality from an eternal perspective.
You appear to determine practicality over a period of a few years.
*Experience is another.*
So you have experienced what occurs upon death, and afterwards?
I seem to have underestimated your experience.
*The subset never needs to be totally representative. It only needs to be representative enough to include all the things that matter.*
Oddly enough, that is true.
However, your position appears to be that you can determine what matters before you know what matters.
Furthermore, your ability to know what matters may be affected by deception, which appears to be something that your personal philosophy, like Teg's, fails to take into consideration.
*No such thing, I'm afraid. Gödel proved as much.*
Actually he didn't.
I believe he was talking about "formal" systems.
"Formal" is derived from "form" which is generally acknowledged to mean being distinct from having substance.
Substantial systems are a different story, and Gödel didn't say anything about them.
*Not unless you are prepared to discard Gödel's Theorem. It applies to God just as it applies to man.*
See above. I'm not discarding Gödel's Theorem, as I am realizing what it applies to.
*The scientific method is purely a methodology for generating those other systems.*
Don't be confused by the word "method."
The sci met is a formal system, since it follows a "form."
*therefore over time an increasing amount of reality gets represented within human thought thereby progressively diminishing the total incompleteness.*
That sounds good, unless the total amount of potential knowledge is infinite.
In which case, you are not diminishing the total incompleteness at all, any more than you could diminish infinity by repeatedly subtracting one from it.
*How does information exist without any information carrier?*
Beats me.
*provide the definition of information that does not rely on any medium*
I don't know such a definition, however, I am not going to assume that one does not exist.
*Thus you could say that evolution is a directed random process – a stochastic system.*
"Directed" implies "director."
Either evolution is random or it is intelligently directed.
*That is correct. It is also, as stated, the sufficient explanation of why logic is effective (it has been selected for indirectly by being a side-effect of structured abstract thought, and thereby turns out to be a pretty good inductive generalization of bulk matter’s emergent properties.)*
?
So the color "red" didn't exist until you saw it?
*Not true, just as English does not exist independently of whether anyone grasps it or not.*
What you appear to be saying is that a language that disappeared with no written evidence does not exist because no one grasps it, even though at one point in time people did grasp it, because they spoke it.
That is beginning to stretch the limits of believability.
That would mean that had someone developed the principles of logic, and then proceeded to forget them, then logic would not have existed until a second person develops them again.
Furthermore, that leads to the conclusion that if someone had written the principles of logic in code, and died without revealing the code, your argument would be that logic didn't exist.
All I can say to that is: ????
*You could say it’s relativistic of information to only apply to the entirety of a single universe (ours). However that’s stretching the intended meaning of the word a little, don’t you think?*
Only if there is another universe.
*truth is a judgment and as such exists only within an information processor. There it gets only as a result of the information processor existing. And also, of course, as a result of the inputs to the processor. Thereby it indeed depends to a large extent on perception.*
Truth as a percept exists as you describe.
However, there has to be some external truth which exists, of which our perception of truth is a specific instance.
Otherwise, we couldn't perceive truth, and we wouldn't have any way to even discuss the meaning of the word.
In addition, this external truth could exist, without our even being aware of it, somewhat like the existence of UV light, which we cannot perceive, yet exists anyway.
*Such an ability is itself contradictory.*
Ahh, but true omnipotence would be able to make THAT contradiction disappear, also.
*the argument demonstrates that no God exists (with the capitalized form meaning as conceived in Abrahamic religions) because such a god is the be-all and end-all of existence, which is impossible since ectoplasm has to be the real deal.*
That would be true, which is one reason that God isn't made of ectoplasm.
*Originally posted by Hoth
If I believed in a god, logic would probably force me to kill myself. If I believed in a benevolent god, one that doesn't condemn it's creations to eternal torture, I'd kill myself and be in heaven that much quicker.*
That would be very selfish, plus that would leave one going thru all eternity with no rewards.
That would be very bleak.
*Originally posted by Bambi
Religion is not only a mass psychosis that affects individual freedoms of atheists, but it is also an impediment to truth.*
How could it be an impediment to truth?
You were arguing that truth is basically what you perceive, so how could, say, my religion, affect your perception?
*Originally posted by Bebelina
The dream world is real, and so is everything else ever perceived by anyone in whatever state of consciousness. Imagination is a wonderful tool, that you may have forgotten to use.*
You're forgetting that a materialist like Cris is forced by his philosophy to argue that either dreams are not real (so what are they?) or that they are material.
I'd like to see the proof for material dreams.
PS, informing us about wet dreams is more information than we need at this point, seeing as a little while ago you were claiming to be celibate, Cris.
*Is the fact that I´m open to new perspectives, limit my perspective?*
Yes.
How will you be able to tell which perspective is the right one, if you are always moving to the next perspective?
*Be nice people, don´t call eachother retards, anti-christs and whatever...we all have names, let´s use them instead.*
Calling someone antichrist isn't calling them names.
If some state their position as against Christ, then they are antichrist, just like someone who is against war is antiwar.
Besides, isn't your name Angelina?
*Originally posted by Teg
Tony1 seems to have lost even an appetite for arguing facts.*
Why don't you try presenting some to argue with?
*There is no God.*
Perfect.
The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God....
(Psalms 14:1, KJV).
*When was the last time you saw a miracle*
Yesterday.
*If this god is all powerful, why does it/he/she allow we infadels to persist?*
...the wealth of the sinner is laid up for the just.
(Proverbs 13:22, KJV).
You're not done working yet.
