For the Creationists

[Saquist]

Well you've had your turn Enterprise-D. Let Sarkus take a shot.

 

[Enterprise-D]

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.

Let me ask this bluntly...do you worship your country Saquist? I never asked you about the Soviets. I asked you about you

And the level of reasonableness is extremely subjective. To me it is more reasonable that a complex design necessarily be the work of a committee coming to a consensus conclusion. You still have yet to logically prove your assertation (which we already know to be impossible, hence why we called you on it).

 

[Sarkus]

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

No - not "just for argument's sake" - but to see if you can actually support what currently are nothing more than confidence statements.

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

 

[Sarkus]

Well you've had your turn Enterprise-D. Let Sarkus take a shot.

"Take a shot"?
At what, precisely?
At countering your claims?

To do that we need to know what you support your claims with - otherwise there is no need to counter them as they fall over as a result of that lack of support.

 

[Saquist]

So you are you attempting to convey that you haven't been paying attention untill this point?

 

[Enterprise-D]

Well you've had your turn Enterprise-D. Let Sarkus take a shot.

I was unaware that forums required taking turns. Unless you'd like to let LG take another turn at defending your claim unsuccessfully?

Be that as it may, thus far you even have yet to address Sarkus' question, let alone logically address my own from before.

 

[Saquist]

Sarkus didn't ask a question that hasn't already been answered. If he was inclined toward discourse his participation would be self evident.

Listening is prerequisite of conversation.

 

[Enterprise-D]

Yes he did. I never asked that question, and I've been the only one challenging you and LG for the past few pages.

 

[Sarkus]

Sarkus didn't ask a question that hasn't already been answered.

I shall ask yet again:
On what grounds do you assert that the universe was:
(a) Constructed; and then
(b) Accidentally constructed?

If you feel that it has been answered before, please be kind enough to point out the post number.

Currently your claims have been nothing but statements relying on confidence. No supporting rationale behind them.

Either point out where you have answered the question or answer the question.

If he was inclined toward discourse his participation would be self evident.

If you were inclined toward discussion then you would be kind enough to answer the question. Currently you are just displaying rudeness and foolishness.

Listening is prerequisite of conversation.

Then maybe you should start "listening" to your own supposed answers and you would realise that they appear unsubstantiated.

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

 

[Saquist]

First baiting and then...these demands. Then back to baiting.
A hardline approach, posturing, unyielding, yet entirely unmotivated be this "seeker of evidence" you claim to be.

Very peculiar.

 

[Sarkus]

First baiting and then...these demands. Then back to baiting.
A hardline approach, posturing, unyielding, yet entirely unmotivated be this "seeker of evidence" you claim to be.

Very peculiar.

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


Shall we assume by your apparent refusal to answer that you have none?

 

[lightgigantic]

“ Sarkus

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
...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.
Sarkus

Without the presence of time and space, how do you propose to distinguish between two objects?
If an entity possesses omnipresence, as well as full independence, that problem doesn’t arise

 

[lightgigantic]

“ Enterprise D

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
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.

If your challenge is that the claim isn’t logical, and we indicate that it is, you can either revoke your challenge (or in sciforums language, move on to another challenge) or defend your challenge.

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.

So to carry through with your “could be” ..... logically establish how more than one designer “could be” involved in the creation of such things as time and space (since having two or more designers in existence immediately requires time and space)

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.

See above
“

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
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.

So if you say that you are looking at your computer screen I can falsify that claim by saying you could potentially be on drugs and are in fact looking at a window?

“

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
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!

You claimed it wasn’t logical to accept one designer for the universe
The universe contains the elements of time and space
Logic dictates that it is not possible for two entities to exist unless there is the medium of time and space.
You are required to review or elaborate on your claim.

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"!

Fortunately for us, empiricism doesn’t have the monopoly on perceiving truths

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.

If you could quit swapping between demands for logic when you begin by making demands for evidence, perhaps you could see the point
“

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
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.

To be engaged in suffering is to be engaged in finding a solution to it (and to be engaged in enjoyment means to be finding a means to continue it) – hence we are engaged in suffering / enjoyment
“

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
(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.

So you have officially changed your challenge from “that’s not logical” to “there is no evidence”?
“

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
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.

Are we having the same conversation? Does a spark land on a damp patch of earth so the fire can continue burning?
“

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
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.

Are dentists also blackmailing you when they tell you you’re only required to brush the teeth you want to keep (Brush your teeth or suffer a lack of happiness)?
“

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
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?

Well it is his universe that we happening to using as a toilet

Does might make right?

Not in all cases, but ownership does (nine tenths of the law isn’t it)

Does the ability to wield omnipotent power give him the right or the opportunity to demand of us lowly mortals?

I am not sure what the solution is - Maybe you should try and create your own universe

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?

Err – scripture for a start

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.

I don’t know if we said that (the bit about expecting he rest of the world to absorb our beliefs)
We did say however make a presentation how the universe is created by one designer is a logically sound premise.

, with no evidence and no logic, you will find that as time goes on, humans will eventually declare the obsolescence of religion.

When we present logic, you whine “that is not evidence”.
When we present the prerequisites for determining evidence, you whine “that is not logical”

Before you use the words “logic” and “evidence”, you should understand how they are validated

(logic doesn’t require evidence to be logical – logic requires premises that lead to a conclusion .....and evidence doesn’t require logic to be evidence – evidence requires premises that are true).

 

[Sarkus]

Without the presence of time and space, how do you propose to distinguish between two objects?
If an entity possesses omnipresence, as well as full independence, that problem doesn’t arise

Without the presence of time and space - how do YOU claim existence of even one?
Omnipresence surely requires space and time: "present everywhere at the same time"? (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/omnipresence)
Yet there is a lack of it - due to its uncreated position.

So, first you explain to me how this one God can exist without space and time - and then we'll move on to explaining to you how two can.

 

[Enterprise-D]

“ Enterprise D
If your challenge is that the claim isn’t logical, and we indicate that it is, you can either revoke your challenge (or in sciforums language, move on to another challenge) or defend your challenge.

I don't care who calls for infarction or whatever at this point, but LG, this is fucking bullshit of the most pure order. You pretend at philosophy and downcry other posters from your self-erected pedestal.

Something that some theists never understand: the onus is on the claimant to provide evidence for his case if his claim is questioned. What drink on the face of the planet would induce the hallucination that I have to defend a question or even a challenge???? Reversing your opponents' unanswered challenge is a cowardly tactic and one you consisently employ. You, LG, appear to seek only to frustrate anyone who disagrees with you with labyrinthine and verbose garbage and I am confident that your only purpose is to bamboozle innocent people into accepting your theisms wholesale.

I will not address the rest of your post since you have begun it with shit and I have no intention of being near the fan you're aiming at.

 

[Ophiolite]

Seconded.

 

[lightgigantic]

I don't care who calls for infarction or whatever at this point, but LG, this is fucking bullshit of the most pure order. You pretend at philosophy and downcry other posters from your self-erected pedestal.

Something that some theists never understand: the onus is on the claimant to provide evidence for his case if his claim is questioned. What drink on the face of the planet would induce the hallucination that I have to defend a question or even a challenge???? Reversing your opponents' unanswered challenge is a cowardly tactic and one you consisently employ. You, LG, appear to seek only to frustrate anyone who disagrees with you with labyrinthine and verbose garbage and I am confident that your only purpose is to bamboozle innocent people into accepting your theisms wholesale.

I will not address the rest of your post since you have begun it with shit and I have no intention of being near the fan you're aiming at.

so once again we appear to have drifted from the pursuit of logic to the pursuit of evidence....

to reiterate

"When we present logic, you whine “that is not evidence”.
When we present the prerequisites for determining evidence, you whine “that is not logical”

Before you use the words “logic” and “evidence”, you should understand how they are validated

(logic doesn’t require evidence to be logical – logic requires premises that lead to a conclusion .....and evidence doesn’t require logic to be evidence – evidence requires premises that are true)."

One query at a time - what do you want to discuss?

1. There is no evidence that there is one god responsible for the creation of the material world (as opposed to many)
2. It is not logical to accept that there is one god responsible for the creation of the world (as opposed to many)
3. there is no evidence that the universe is created by any sort of intelligence
4. It is not logical that the universe was created by any sort of intelligence

of course you might say "All of the above", but for the purposes of discussion it would be better to focus on one issue at a time (since the demands of logic and evidence are slightly different)

 

[lightgigantic]

Without the presence of time and space - how do YOU claim existence of even one?
Omnipresence surely requires space and time: "present everywhere at the same time"? (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/omnipresence)
Yet there is a lack of it - due to its uncreated position.

So, first you explain to me how this one God can exist without space and time - and then we'll move on to explaining to you how two can.

time and space do not inhibit omnipresence (nor does infinity) - coupled with eternality, you have an entity that is not contingent on time or space

 

[SnakeLord]

Without the presence of time and space, how do you propose to distinguish between two objects?
If an entity possesses omnipresence, as well as full independence, that problem doesn’t arise

This statement is ludicrous, and it seems Sarkus certainly pointed out one such problem already.

Be there one god or two gods, they have to inhabit something. That something can be "nothingness" or "space". Two gods can inhabit nothingness or space just as well as one can. Your argument simply isn't valid.

Secondly.. the instance that one god does something indicates time. If that one entity can actually do something without it taking time then so can two.

 

[lightgigantic]

This statement is ludicrous, and it seems Sarkus certainly pointed out one such problem already.

Be there one god or two gods, they have to inhabit something. That something can be "nothingness" or "space".

so given your knowledge base, how do you propose we examine the nature of nothingness?

Two gods can inhabit nothingness or space just as well as one can. Your argument simply isn't valid.

not really because two implies distinction (you could say however that there were two or more acting out of the same sense of consciousness)

Secondly.. the instance that one god does something indicates time. If that one entity can actually do something without it taking time then so can two.

perhaps, but one of the two would have to be contingent on the other