For the Creationists

[lightgigantic]

No Saquist, I didn't specifically say "god requires a support structure". This whole analogy started when you said logic requires that a design begets a single designer. This is where is spiralled into design committees etc, and thusly arriving at this contrived point. We were simply pointing out that a design does not necessarily originate from one designer. Project Manager, Company, CEO notwithstanding, there can be multiple participants, any one of whose absence would result in a failed design. Simply as a counterpoint to your own assumption of a single designer...if we accepted that the universe required a designer at all.

you never did get back to us and explain how, since god created elements such as time and space, that more than one personality could be involved in such a creation

PS If god is omnipotent and requires nothing, why would he require your constant worship and praise?

he doesn't
on the other hand if his separated parts and parcels, the living entities, are not in harmony with him (and such harmony is initialized by their worship) they end up suffering in a variety of ways (aka - thematerial world)

 

[lightgigantic]

And why would he want the worship and praise of a turkey?

better than remaining a turkey

 

[Enterprise-D]

you never did get back to us and explain how, since god created elements such as time and space, that more than one personality could be involved in such a creation

LG babycakes...this analogy was spurned from the positive claim that logically, only a single personality is responsible for the creation of the universe. This claim was made by Saquist with no supporting arguments. A couple of us showed that a variable creation can have more than one creator, so it is upon Saquist (and you if you so choose the mantle) to show why logically, a singular creator is the only contributor to the creation of the universe.

(Bearing in mind that I of course doubt the whole creationist story in the first place)

he doesn't
on the other hand if his separated parts and parcels, the living entities, are not in harmony with him (and such harmony is initialized by their worship) they end up suffering in a variety of ways (aka - thematerial world)

In other words...we worship or we suffer automatically (or perhaps autonomically), simply due to our existence? That strikes me as efficiently heartless. And if we, as u say, are parts of a god, he enjoys a little masochism? You make less and less sense as the days pass LG...

Oh and allow me to restate my question... if your god is omnipotent, why would he demand - rather than 'require' - worship as christianity claims; why would he need to blackmail it out of lesser beings (worship or burn)? Or perhaps in your convoluted parcel analogy thing there, why would any of his separate parts suffer; if he were omnipotent he could simply cause the eradication of any suffering.

 

[Saquist]

No Saquist, I didn't specifically say "god requires a support structure". This whole analogy started when you said logic requires that a design begets a single designer. This is where is spiralled into design committees etc, and thusly arriving at this contrived point. We were simply pointing out that a design does not necessarily originate from one designer. Project Manager, Company, CEO notwithstanding, there can be multiple participants, any one of whose absence would result in a failed design. Simply as a counterpoint to your own assumption of a single designer...if we accepted that the universe required a designer at all.
Yes...a design begets a single designer. The analogy was true. And organized system follows the guide lines set out by a body a consensus or a head. Design of our universe is seamless and begets a single will.

PS If god is omnipotent and requires nothing, why would he require your constant worship and praise?

That is the nature of Sovereignty. Sovereignty must be recognized. It's a singular ideal that has held true for all time. ...To show appreciation and awe for what is great...It's nothing more than gratitude on a large scale.

The U.S , Britain, Korea, China, and many other countries require for us to show gratitude for their countries exisitence. To contribute to it's continued existence, to be productive...that is one of the traits of all administrations.

 

[Enterprise-D]

No Saquist, I didn't specifically say "god requires a support structure". This whole analogy started when you said logic requires that a design begets a single designer. This is where is spiralled into design committees etc, and thusly arriving at this contrived point. We were simply pointing out that a design does not necessarily originate from one designer. Project Manager, Company, CEO notwithstanding, there can be multiple participants, any one of whose absence would result in a failed design. Simply as a counterpoint to your own assumption of a single designer...if we accepted that the universe required a designer at all.

Yes...a design begets a single designer. The analogy was true. And organized system follows the guide lines set out by a body a consensus or a head. Design of our universe is seamless and begets a single will.

- A single will does not mean a single entity.
- A consensus implies a combined effort. A vote. A statistical result.
- A body implies a committee or similar such structure.
- A head implies a management hierarchy in which there must be additional individuals.

You have yet to logically prove your claim.

That is the nature of Sovereignty. Sovereignty must be recognized. It's a singular ideal that has held true for all time. ...To show appreciation and awe for what is great...It's nothing more than gratitude on a large scale.

The U.S , Britain, Korea, China, and many other countries require for us to show gratitude for their countries exisitence. To contribute to it's continued existence, to be productive...that is one of the traits of all administrations.

Worship and gratitude are two different things. The US government does not promise eternal hellfire if you migrate to another country. The British Empire did not bomb it's former colonies when they became independent. However, Christianity's explanation of god promises eternal torment if the listener does not worship.

Further, it makes little sense that worship of an omnipotence is detrimental to its continued existence or even its productivity; as populations contribute taxes to their country's existence. An omnipotent being (unlike a country) requires no help from anything else for continuance.

Your analogy is illogical.

 

[Saquist]

- A single will does not mean a single entity.
- A consensus implies a combined effort. A vote. A statistical result.
- A body implies a committee or similar such structure.
- A head implies a management hierarchy in which there must be additional individuals.

You have yet to logically prove your claim.

Very well.
There is no documented occurence of two wills existing in one entity. While multiple personality disorder is commonly refered to as such is actually an imbalance. Such an imbalanced has never given rise to conplex organization.

the claim is thus indicative of the proposal.

Worship and gratitude are two different things. The US government does not promise eternal hellfire if you migrate to another country. The British Empire did not bomb it's former colonies when they became independent. However, Christianity's explanation of god promises eternal torment if the listener does not worship.

Further, it makes little sense that worship of an omnipotence is detrimental to its continued existence or even its productivity; as populations contribute taxes to their country's existence. An omnipotent being (unlike a country) requires no help from anything else for continuance.

Your analogy is illogical.

As precedent I site Carlton Hayes. (Historian)

The ritual of flag-worship an oath-taking in an American school is a religous observance...And that they daily ritual are religious has been at last afirmed by the Supreme Court in a series of cases." -The American Character (New York 1956) D.W. Brogan, ppp. 163, 164

Further....

"Early flags were almost purely of a religous character. ....The national banner of England for centuries- the red cross of St. George- was a religous one; in fact the aid of religion seems ever to have been sought to give sanctity to national flags, and the origin of many can be traced to a sacred banner."-Encylopedia Britannica (1946), Vol. 9 p. 343

Lastly...

"in a public ceremony presided over by the vice president of the Military Supreme Court, on the 19th of November honors were shown to the Brazillian flag...After the flag was hoisted, Minister General of the Army Tristao de Alencar Araripe expresed himself concering the comemoration in this manner: ' ...flags have become a divinity of patriotic religon which imposes worship...The flag is venerated and worshiped...The flag is worshiped, just as the Fatherland is worshiped.'"- Diario da Justica (Federal Captial, Brazil) Feburary 16, 1956 p. 1906.


The analogy is thus sound.

 

[lightgigantic]

EnterpriseD

“ Originally Posted by lightgigantic
you never did get back to us and explain how, since god created elements such as time and space, that more than one personality could be involved in such a creation
”
LG babycakes...this analogy was spurned from the positive claim that logically, only a single personality is responsible for the creation of the universe. This claim was made by Saquist with no supporting arguments. A couple of us showed that a variable creation can have more than one creator, so it is upon Saquist (and you if you so choose the mantle) to show why logically, a singular creator is the only contributor to the creation of the universe.[

(Bearing in mind that I of course doubt the whole creationist story in the first place)

So what are you asking for?
A logical explanation how a singular personality is responsible for the creation of the universe (in which case I ask you to determine how it could not be the case, given that god is held as being the ultimate causal feature, which would make all things, including time and space, contingent factors)?
Or evidence that god exists (in which case I would ask you to examine the prerequisites commonly held as necessary to be granted such a state of direct perception)?
SB 4.7.31 Lord Brahmä said: My dear Lord, Your personality and eternal form cannot be understood by any person who is trying to know You through the different processes of acquiring knowledge. Your position is always transcendental to the material creation, whereas the empiric attempt to understand You is material, as are its objectives and instruments.

“ Originally Posted by lightgigantic
he doesn't
on the other hand if his separated parts and parcels, the living entities, are not in harmony with him (and such harmony is initialized by their worship) they end up suffering in a variety of ways (aka - thematerial world) ”

In other words...we worship or we suffer automatically (or perhaps autonomically), simply due to our existence?

We enjoy/suffer constitutionally – just like according to our decision to eat or not to eat healthy foodstuffs, we enjoy/suffer constitutionally

That strikes me as efficiently heartless.

Why? Its our common experience that objects have a constitutional position, and that according to environment/circumstances that position can be devalued or valued – like for instance microphones are good for public addresses. Lawnmowers are not. If you bring the best lawn mower in the world for a public address, it won’t be of any value.

And if we, as u say, are parts of a god, he enjoys a little masochism? You make less and less sense as the days pass LG...

Separated part and parcel simply means that we are smaller, separated versions of the original – just like a spark is a separated part and parcel of a fire (a spark has the same qualities as the fire, but not the quantity) – so if we, by our own free will, decide to venture into an environment nonconductive to our nature, like say a spark landing on bare damp earth, why would that make god masochistic (it would however make us foolish)?

Oh and allow me to restate my question... if your god is omnipotent, why would he demand - rather than 'require' - worship as christianity claims; why would he need to blackmail it out of lesser beings (worship or burn)? Or perhaps in your convoluted parcel analogy thing there, why would any of his separate parts suffer; if he were omnipotent he could simply cause the eradication of any suffering.

Not sure what you are asking.
Are you saying that an omnipotent god would be more credible if he required (ie was dependant on) worship as opposed to demanding it? (wouldn’t that make him something other than omnipotent?)

Furthermore I am not sure what you have riding on the word “demand.”? Are you saying that a god that demands (ie has organized the world in such a way that deciding not to results in trouble) worship has somehow invalidated his position as god? (God has no capacity or potency to install normative values? What sort of supreme being is that?)

 

[Enterprise-D]

Very well.
There is no documented occurence of two wills existing in one entity. While multiple personality disorder is commonly refered to as such is actually an imbalance. Such an imbalanced has never given rise to conplex organization.

the claim is thus indicative of the proposal.

You have completely misunderstood the point. I never meant that a multiple wills must happen in one entity. A single will can be the result of a consensus of multiple and separate entities, thus appearing as a "single designer". The appearance of such however does not mean that the designer is singular. You're fighting a lost cause, and so is LG...even worse than you are.

As precedent I site Carlton Hayes. (Historian)

The ritual of flag-worship an oath-taking in an American school is a religous observance...And that they daily ritual are religious has been at last afirmed by the Supreme Court in a series of cases." -The American Character (New York 1956) D.W. Brogan, ppp. 163, 164

Further....

"Early flags were almost purely of a religous character. ....The national banner of England for centuries- the red cross of St. George- was a religous one; in fact the aid of religion seems ever to have been sought to give sanctity to national flags, and the origin of many can be traced to a sacred banner."-Encylopedia Britannica (1946), Vol. 9 p. 343

Lastly...

"in a public ceremony presided over by the vice president of the Military Supreme Court, on the 19th of November honors were shown to the Brazillian flag...After the flag was hoisted, Minister General of the Army Tristao de Alencar Araripe expresed himself concering the comemoration in this manner: ' ...flags have become a divinity of patriotic religon which imposes worship...The flag is venerated and worshiped...The flag is worshiped, just as the Fatherland is worshiped.'"- Diario da Justica (Federal Captial, Brazil) Feburary 16, 1956 p. 1906.


The analogy is thus sound.

1. Please find a reference that is at LEAST supported by the last 25 years of psychology, or even the last 25 years of print media?.
2. There might be one or two theists that would ever agree that they ever worshipped a flag, a country or a human political force. These theists would be of course corrected and reassimilated by their respective leaders.
3. None of these quotes deny the veracity of my statement. The contribution of anything towards your country definitely has a beneficial effect to each contributor (health plans, political asylum, employment, money, expanded territory etc); plus a country cannot survive without the collective effort of its inhabitants. An omnipotence can, will and must; yet still various theisms resort to cosmic blackmail to elicit worship towards it.

 

[Enterprise-D]

EnterpriseD
So what are you asking for?
A logical explanation how a singular personality is responsible for the creation of the universe (in which case I ask you to determine how it could not be the case, given that god is held as being the ultimate causal feature, which would make all things, including time and space, contingent factors)?

I'm not going to attempt to prove a negative to argue your own case. Saquist postulated a conclusion, we challenged him, you took up the challenge as well. It is up to YOU to support your own case of a singular designer (again keeping in mind that I doubt a designer in the first place).

Or evidence that god exists (in which case I would ask you to examine the prerequisites commonly held as necessary to be granted such a state of direct perception)?

Not my problem, I didn't make the claim, I just provided alternative possibilities to prove that the postulation may be mistaken (i.e. I presented a case that could potentially falsify the claim). It is contingent on you and Saquist to prove the singular designer claim.

SB 4.7.31 Lord Brahmä said: My dear Lord, Your personality and eternal form cannot be understood by any person who is trying to know You through the different processes of acquiring knowledge. Your position is always transcendental to the material creation, whereas the empiric attempt to understand You is material, as are its objectives and instruments.

Completely irrelevant. I'm asking you to state why a designer MUST be singular, when we have shown that a design itself does not prove any such statement.

I also find it highly escapist that your answer to everything is a religious text quote which basically says "you can't know, because you can't". It simply affirms the fact that your beliefs are illogical and unsupported.

We enjoy/suffer constitutionally – just like according to our decision to eat or not to eat healthy foodstuffs, we enjoy/suffer constitutionally

What? Are you in radical Opus Dei or something? Speaking for myself, I do not enjoy any suffering whatsoever; in fact I regularly try to avoid tripping on the iron maiden at the dinner table

Why? Its our common experience that objects have a constitutional position, and that according to environment/circumstances that position can be devalued or valued – like for instance microphones are good for public addresses. Lawnmowers are not. If you bring the best lawn mower in the world for a public address, it won’t be of any value.

LG, I am convinced that you purposely attempt to be obtuse for some sort of kinky jollies. Are you saying humans were invented by your deity to suffer? We're the best at suffering?

Separated part and parcel simply means that we are smaller, separated versions of the original – just like a spark is a separated part and parcel of a fire (a spark has the same qualities as the fire, but not the quantity) – so if we, by our own free will, decide to venture into an environment nonconductive to our nature, like say a spark landing on bare damp earth, why would that make god masochistic (it would however make us foolish)?

Simple, an omnipotence can necessarily stop himself from suffering by reintegrating his separated parts, or preventing the separation to begin with.

You are being defensive and unnecessarily complex.

Not sure what you are asking.
Are you saying that an omnipotent god would be more credible if he required (ie was dependant on) worship as opposed to demanding it? (wouldn’t that make him something other than omnipotent?)

An omnipotence would not care about worship. Whether to demand or require it. Theisms would be more credible if their gods did not threaten us lowly humans with eternal suffering if we did not worhip them.

Furthermore I am not sure what you have riding on the word “demand.”? Are you saying that a god that demands (ie has organized the world in such a way that deciding not to results in trouble) worship has somehow invalidated his position as god? (God has no capacity or potency to install normative values? What sort of supreme being is that?)

YOU tell ME!

 

[Saquist]

You have completely misunderstood the point. I never meant that a multiple wills must happen in one entity. A single will can be the result of a consensus of multiple and separate entities, thus appearing as a "single designer". The appearance of such however does not mean that the designer is singular. You're fighting a lost cause, and so is LG...even worse than you are.

I assure you, I understood perfectly your point. A single will is the result of one body or consciousnes...appearence and absolutes are relative. That's why you're taking an analogy and appealing to it in a litteral fashion instead of situating yourself on the reasonableness behind the analogy.

1. Please find a reference that is at LEAST supported by the last 25 years of psychology, or even the last 25 years of print media?.

Forgive me. Let me start off by saying...
Definitions of precedent :

an example that is used to justify similar occurrences at a later time
case law: (civil law) a law established by following earlier judicial decisions
common law: a system of jurisprudence based on judicial precedents rather than statutory laws; "common law originated in the unwritten laws of England and was later applied in the United States"
a subject mentioned earlier (preceding in time)
preceding in time, order, or significance

Hence, forgive me for apply...precedent, appropriately. There is no statute of limmitations on where a precedent can be used.

2. There might be one or two theists that would ever agree that they ever worshipped a flag, a country or a human political force. These theists would be of course corrected and reassimilated by their respective leaders.

Consensus is a bias tool. Rarely anything of consequence is every revealed by polls other than prefrence.

3. None of these quotes deny the veracity of my statement. The contribution of anything towards your country definitely has a beneficial effect to each contributor (health plans, political asylum, employment, money, expanded territory etc); plus a country cannot survive without the collective effort of its inhabitants. An omnipotence can, will and must; yet still various theisms resort to cosmic blackmail to elicit worship towards it.

All of these quotes deny the veracity of your statement.

Your words.

Worship and gratitude are two different things.

These quotes despite your ridicule of the dates all establish that worship and national gratitude are very similar. Hence, why you were incorrect in this statement when you said, the analogy was "Illogical"

You did not have sufficient information. Thus I supplied you with information that set a legal precedent on national divinity. You found the information dated by not in error. You may not still agree with it, but you were in fact flawed in your statement of discontinuity.

 

[lightgigantic]

Enterprise D

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
EnterpriseD
So what are you asking for?
A logical explanation how a singular personality is responsible for the creation of the universe (in which case I ask you to determine how it could not be the case, given that god is held as being the ultimate causal feature, which would make all things, including time and space, contingent factors)? ”
I'm not going to attempt to prove a negative to argue your own case. Saquist postulated a conclusion, we challenged him, you took up the challenge as well. It is up to YOU to support your own case of a singular designer (again keeping in mind that I doubt a designer in the first place).

You challenged that it wasn’t logical – I gave an indication that it was, since there is no logical explanation how things like time and space can involve the input of anymore than one designer (since two entities involves immediate issue of time and space) – what’s next?

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
Or evidence that god exists (in which case I would ask you to examine the prerequisites commonly held as necessary to be granted such a state of direct perception)? ”
Not my problem, I didn't make the claim, I just provided alternative possibilities to prove that the postulation may be mistaken (i.e. I presented a case that could potentially falsify the claim). It is contingent on you and Saquist to prove the singular designer claim.

So to falsify a claim of direct perception its sufficient to offer something that could merely potentially falsify it, as opposed to meeting the prerequisites of the discipline?
“

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
SB 4.7.31 Lord Brahmä said: My dear Lord, Your personality and eternal form cannot be understood by any person who is trying to know You through the different processes of acquiring knowledge. Your position is always transcendental to the material creation, whereas the empiric attempt to understand You is material, as are its objectives and instruments. ”
Completely irrelevant. I'm asking you to state why a designer MUST be singular, when we have shown that a design itself does not prove any such statement.

Now you just have to show that is the case with a designer who creates time and space

I also find it highly escapist that your answer to everything is a religious text quote which basically says "you can't know, because you can't". It simply affirms the fact that your beliefs are illogical and unsupported.

If that’s what you understood from reading the quote you have poor comprehension skills
Let’s try again
SB 4.7.31 Lord Brahmä said: My dear Lord, Your personality and eternal form cannot be understood by any person who is trying to know You through the different processes of acquiring knowledge.(in other words empiricism has limits – why? Let’s read on)

Your position is always transcendental to the material creation, whereas the empiric attempt to understand You is material, as are its objectives and instruments.(because empiricism is limited to the sense perception of material things, and god is beyond material things)
Empiricism has its uses, but determining the nature of god is not one of them

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
We enjoy/suffer constitutionally – just like according to our decision to eat or not to eat healthy foodstuffs, we enjoy/suffer constitutionally ”
What? Are you in radical Opus Dei or something? Speaking for myself, I do not enjoy any suffering whatsoever; in fact I regularly try to avoid tripping on the iron maiden at the dinner table

Actually there was a little “/” between “enjoy” and “suffer”, since love it or loath it, we find these two engagements take up all our time here
“

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
Why? Its our common experience that objects have a constitutional position, and that according to environment/circumstances that position can be devalued or valued – like for instance microphones are good for public addresses. Lawnmowers are not. If you bring the best lawn mower in the world for a public address, it won’t be of any value. ”
LG, I am convinced that you purposely attempt to be obtuse for some sort of kinky jollies. Are you saying humans were invented by your deity to suffer? We're the best at suffering?

(obtuse? You’ve never brought a lawn mower to a public address?)
Actually I am saying that the living entity’s decision to come to the material world was not a bright value judgement, just like the decision to bring a lawnmower to a public address is also not so bright – we are actually designed to enjoy, but the material world is obviously doesn’t have the best admission rates and off site parking (on the other hand it’s a great place to live in forgetfulness of god )

“ Originally Posted by lightgigantic
Separated part and parcel simply means that we are smaller, separated versions of the original – just like a spark is a separated part and parcel of a fire (a spark has the same qualities as the fire, but not the quantity) – so if we, by our own free will, decide to venture into an environment nonconductive to our nature, like say a spark landing on bare damp earth, why would that make god masochistic (it would however make us foolish)? ”
Simple, an omnipotence can necessarily stop himself from suffering by reintegrating his separated parts, or preventing the separation to begin with.

God doesn’t suffer – we do – that’s why we are “separated” parts and parcels (the fire doesn’t diminish if the spark lands on damp earth) – as for the reintegration, that’s what accepting religious principles according to one’s free will is all about (god won’t force you to be religious or force you to be irreligious)

You are being defensive and unnecessarily complex.

Specific inquiries require specific definitions – would you prefer if we just called each other bozo’s?

“ Originally Posted by lightgigantic
Not sure what you are asking.
Are you saying that an omnipotent god would be more credible if he required (ie was dependant on) worship as opposed to demanding it? (wouldn’t that make him something other than omnipotent?) ”
An omnipotence would not care about worship. Whether to demand or require it. Theisms would be more credible if their gods did not threaten us lowly humans with eternal suffering if we did not worhip them.

If the only position of eternal enjoyment is in connection with god, and if we desire to be separate from god, what then? Just like there is no scope for making a fish happy out of water, there is no scope for making the living entity happy without a connection to god – BTW, the good news is that hell is not eternal – merely long and boring

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
Furthermore I am not sure what you have riding on the word “demand.”? Are you saying that a god that demands (ie has organized the world in such a way that deciding not to results in trouble) worship has somehow invalidated his position as god? (God has no capacity or potency to install normative values? What sort of supreme being is that?) ”
YOU tell ME!

Since god has every right to demand things, particularly in regards to how the material universe does and does not work, seems you have a heated opinion perhaps, but not a logical fallacy

 

[Enterprise-D]

I assure you, I understood perfectly your point. A single will is the result of one body or consciousnes...appearence and absolutes are relative. That's why you're taking an analogy and appealing to it in a litteral fashion instead of situating yourself on the reasonableness behind the analogy.

EXACTLY! There is no way you can state with absolute certainty that a single will IS the result of a singular entity.

Forgive me. Let me start off by saying...
Definitions of precedent : ....

Quite true, however, I'm fairly certain that in matters of psychology these precedents were overturned many times over. I'm not going to look for them however, since you (and LG) are making the positive claim.

As a matter of fact, precedents in legal terms can be overturned by later, more learned officials of the law. Otherwise we'd still be withholding the power of voting from women.

Consensus is a bias tool. Rarely anything of consequence is every revealed by polls other than prefrence.

So what? Do you Saquist, as a theist, subscribe to your own precident that patriotism and taxes are a form of worship that you willingly adhere to, on the same level as you do your religious beliefs? If so, then I'll say no more on this particular point; however it still remains that you haven't yet logically proven your initial claim that a design can only be the result of a singular designer.

All of these quotes deny the veracity of your statement.

Your words.

Worship and gratitude are two different things

These quotes despite your ridicule of the dates all establish that worship and national gratitude are very similar. Hence, why you were incorrect in this statement when you said, the analogy was "Illogical"

Unfortunately Saquist, you have honed into a phrase that I have used in a whole paragraph. You have not shown how

1. patriotism and worship are the same, outside of citing aged texts
2. the (insert democratic country here) government FORCES worship of itself, or alternatively how willing patriotism is anywhere akin to the blackmail statement "worship or burn"
3. an omnipotence requires or demands worship for anything outside of ego stroking (whereas a country entity requires patriotism/taxes/economy/trade for survival).

And STILL, you have not shown your claim that a single design equates a single designer to be logically and unchallengably correct. That is very linear thinking Saquist. You believe that there is only one designer and are coming up with many arguments for this foregone conclusion. You cannot know for certain if there is one, or there are twenty-six...or perhaps even ZERO designers of the cosmos.

 

[Enterprise-D]

Enterprise D
You challenged that it wasn’t logical – I gave an indication that it was, since there is no logical explanation how things like time and space can involve the input of anymore than one designer (since two entities involves immediate issue of time and space) – what’s next?

Escapist rubbish. You and Saquist are defending a claim that Saquist has made. Now you want me to defend my challenge? I note that this is your consistent strategy throughout the threads you participate in. Such a method is intended to obfuscate the entire conversation.

LG, there is no way to prove either one or fifty designers were responsible for any design result, whether it be the cosmos or an architecture, just by examining the design itself. I never said I know there are more, I just put forth an example that there could be, and you can't know that there was a single one, or even one.

Look at your PC. Was it designed by one person or a team? Just by staring at the tower/monitor can you tell? Of course you can't (just in case you don't know "Dell" or "Sony" aren't designers, they're company names and marketing icons). Yet you deign to preach that you know the entire cosmos must have had one single designer.

So to falsify a claim of direct perception its sufficient to offer something that could merely potentially falsify it, as opposed to meeting the prerequisites of the discipline?

Jollies again. A perception is hardly evidence; a hallucination is also a perception. Drug induced paranoia is a perception. Watching TV is a perception. All of which are direct and based on unreal experiences.

Now you just have to show that is the case with a designer who creates time and space

I do not have to demonstrate anything. Get it through your head LG, I made no claim. It is incumbent on the claimant to prove his case. Legally or otherwise!

If that’s what you understood from reading the quote you have poor comprehension skills

I put it to you that you have poor communication skills. You are consistently vague and purposefully obtuse, as if you are trying your utmost to appear the philisophical savant...

Let’s try again
SB 4.7.31 Lord Brahmä said: My dear Lord, Your personality and eternal form cannot be understood by any person who is trying to know You through the different processes of acquiring knowledge.(in other words empiricism has limits – why? Let’s read on)

Your position is always transcendental to the material creation, whereas the empiric attempt to understand You is material, as are its objectives and instruments.(because empiricism is limited to the sense perception of material things, and god is beyond material things)
Empiricism has its uses, but determining the nature of god is not one of them

...unfortunately, quoting religious texts demonstrates little more than the ability to parrot previously published works.

Besides which, this entire text states that man-made empiric methods and machines cannot perceive any god because he's not bound by material law. Very simple to understand: "Too bad, so sad! You can't know, because you can't know"!

To share one of my favourite quotes (paraphrased slightly): "Whatever we (man) wish to accomplish, we can. The rest is just making excuses."

Plus: this SB quote is completely irrelevant to the task at hand...it does not in any way allude to your adopted claim of one...single...designer.

Actually there was a little “/” between “enjoy” and “suffer”, since love it or loath it, we find these two engagements take up all our time here

Lol, well you know what, you enjoy your suffering; if anything painful happens to me I seek to end it quickly such that suffering takes little time.

(obtuse? You’ve never brought a lawn mower to a public address?)
Actually I am saying that the living entity’s decision to come to the material world was not a bright value judgement, just like the decision to bring a lawnmower to a public address is also not so bright – we are actually designed to enjoy, but the material world is obviously doesn’t have the best admission rates and off site parking (on the other hand it’s a great place to live in forgetfulness of god )

Jollies and more obtusery. None of this proves your claim.

God doesn’t suffer – we do – that’s why we are “separated” parts and parcels (the fire doesn’t diminish if the spark lands on damp earth) – as for the reintegration, that’s what accepting religious principles according to one’s free will is all about (god won’t force you to be religious or force you to be irreligious)

Ah, so we exist to suffer so that god can't suffer? Very enlightened LG.

Specific inquiries require specific definitions – would you prefer if we just called each other bozo’s?

LOL That was kinda funny

If the only position of eternal enjoyment is in connection with god, and if we desire to be separate from god, what then? Just like there is no scope for making a fish happy out of water, there is no scope for making the living entity happy without a connection to god – BTW, the good news is that hell is not eternal – merely long and boring

So "worship or suffer a lack of happiness". Blackmail is blackmail no matter how you try to soften the "burn" part.

Since god has every right to demand things, particularly in regards to how the material universe does and does not work, seems you have a heated opinion perhaps, but not a logical fallacy

Why? Where did he get the right to demand things? Does might make right? Does the ability to wield omnipotent power give him the right or the opportunity to demand of us lowly mortals?

Where do you get off stating even that any god has the right to demand anything? If such an entity exists how could you possibly know any of his ethical boundaries?

LG, you're missing the entire point. You, Saquist et al are putting forward conclusions that you have already come to, and expect the rest of the world to absorb and conform to your beliefs. Unfortunately, with no evidence and no logic, you will find that as time goes on, humans will eventually declare the obsolescence of religion.

 

[Sarkus]

...since there is no logical explanation how things like time and space can involve the input of anymore than one designer (since two entities involves immediate issue of time and space)...

How so?

Firstly - you are discussing the CREATION of time and space - so how does having one entity - or two - or a gazillion - involve an "immediate issue of time and space"? Surely "time and space" are not around prior to their creation?

Secondly - why do you hold that, logically, one entity can exist prior to the creation of time and space, yet two can not? Remember, there is no space, no time prior to their creation. Yet you are quite comfortable in having one entity (even though you can not logically explain how that entity "exists") and yet you claim that to have TWO such entities is not logical?

Your "logic" is nothing of the sort.

All I see from you above are confidence statements with no basis / grounding in logic or evidence.

 

[Enterprise-D]

Good catch Sarkus, I missed that angle

 

[Saquist]

EXACTLY! There is no way you can state with absolute certainty that a single will IS the result of a singular entity.

Reason is known as the ability to yield.
Without knowing absolutes it is possible to come to a reasonable conclusion by yield to the facts. Cohesion, purpose and repetition in the processes of the universe and organization imply without absolutes that there is one designer.

The conclusion is fundalmental after the exclusion of the myriad of coincidences most scientist apply to life and the accidental construction of the universe.

Quite true, however, I'm fairly certain that in matters of psychology these precedents were overturned many times over.

Certain in what, excactly? Certainty in belief is exactly why religion has the problems that it does have. To say nothing of the juxtaposition of the same "belief" that evolutionist trust in.

As a matter of fact, precedents in legal terms can be overturned by later, more learned officials of the law. Otherwise we'd still be withholding the power of voting from women.

This analogy is missed placed. It's a moral and ethical comparision compared to the behavioral politics and religious comparison formly addressed.

Further. I know Jehovah's Witness have won several modern day court verdicts to have the right not only to view the Flag as a nationalistic and religious Icon or Idol but to refuse the resighting of the Pledge of Alliegence and those rulings have not been over turned. I share that perspective.

The rulings stand.


So what? Do you Saquist, as a theist, subscribe to your own precident that patriotism and taxes are a form of worship that you willingly adhere to, on the same level as you do your religious beliefs? If so, then I'll say no more on this particular point; however it still remains that you haven't yet logically proven your initial claim that a design can only be the result of a singular designer.

In fact I do view as just so. The Soviets attempts to remove religion a replace it with nationlistic holidays resulted in observing Christmas twice in Modern day Russia.

Worship of the State is practice that goes back to ancient Babylon and Egypt and up to Nipon's Emperor worship, Russia and the United States, Pledge of Alliegence.

The evidence of a singular purpose reflects a singular and cohesive universe. The conclusion that there were multiple designers does not have firm standing vs. the organized structure we observe.

Is this absolute? No. Is it reasonable? Yes, very much so.

Unfortunately Saquist, you have honed into a phrase that I have used in a whole paragraph.

It was the only part of your statement that there was in factual contradiction. It is not logical to adress your entire paragraph as it was divergent from the issue.

You have not shown how

1. patriotism and worship are the same, outside of citing aged texts

That has now been supplimented. Thus it should end your contention with "age", so as to appeal to what is new and modern.

2. the (insert democratic country here) government FORCES worship of itself, or alternatively how willing patriotism is anywhere akin to the blackmail statement "worship or burn"

Do not be short sided. Paying your taxes is not optional. It is akin to giving back to God in appreciation of the organiation. There are many parallels to state and church as they've had similar roles through the millenia. I'll avoid in direct descriptions so as not to lure you off topic.

3. an omnipotence requires or demands worship for anything outside of ego stroking (whereas a country entity requires patriotism/taxes/economy/trade for survival).

All of it is a showing of appreciations and gratitude. That is my perspective.

 

[Enterprise-D]

Saquist, I'd like to see you answer Sarkus' question...so much better phrased than by me previously:

How so?

Firstly - you are discussing the CREATION of time and space - so how does having one entity - or two - or a gazillion - involve an "immediate issue of time and space"? Surely "time and space" are not around prior to their creation?

Secondly - why do you hold that, logically, one entity can exist prior to the creation of time and space, yet two can not? Remember, there is no space, no time prior to their creation. Yet you are quite comfortable in having one entity (even though you can not logically explain how that entity "exists") and yet you claim that to have TWO such entities is not logical?

Your "logic" is nothing of the sort.

All I see from you above are confidence statements with no basis / grounding in logic or evidence.

 

[Sarkus]

The conclusion is fundalmental after the exclusion of the myriad of coincidences most scientist apply to life and the accidental construction of the universe.

Exactly what are these "myriad of coincidences" that are applied to life and the "accidental construction of the universe"?

On what grounds do you assert that the universe was:
(a) Constructed; and then
(b) Accidentally constructed.

If you can not support your claim of the former then it is nothing but a confidence statement, and the latter becomes an irrelevancy.

 

[Saquist]

Why do you want to know? Just for argument's stake?

 

[Enterprise-D]

Reason is known as the ability to yield.
Without knowing absolutes it is possible to come to a reasonable conclusion by yield to the facts. Cohesion, purpose and repetition in the processes of the universe and organization imply without absolutes that there is one designer.

The conclusion is fundalmental after the exclusion of the myriad of coincidences most scientist apply to life and the accidental construction of the universe.

To expand, how does
1. Cohesion
2. Purpose
3. Repetition
imply a single designer, if any at all?

On what grounds do you think the universe or the universe's so called processes has a purpose?