The Creation

[lightgigantic]

So God derives pleasure from creating. This is what it's all about? :shrug: Even Rome had its gladiators.

and its architects ....

Ever think God could be a machine like Cosmic AC? (Asimov: Last Question)

It's a short story. ://www.multivax.com/last_question.html

perhaps that might be a way to conceptualize the core operation of the physical environment, but even an analog computer works under the direction of an operator.

 

[iceaura]

not when you suggest that there is nothing fundamental to a reductionist view

The matter hasn't come up.

your values aside, it still remains a fundamental fact to any pedagogical model you can think of that there is a very real need for prerequisites.

So? We were talking about your attempt to assume the consequent, in a debate, and dismiss any arguments that failed to so assume.

On the contrary, you seem to be relegating the terms of an actual debate to a mere agreement to your values.

I'm calling you on bullshit. You will cease requiring that others accept your assumptions when those assumptions are the matter under discussion, or no debate - just more ridicule.

Why not just take the OT as it is without bringing your "without's" to the table in a vain attempt to grant a superior position?

Interesting that you, also, recognize the superiority of the position once granted. The motive for deflecting the debate away from that position and into gibberish concealing question-begging assumptions becomes obvious, no?

but even an analog computer works under the direction of an operator.

Not necessarily, however - circumstantial. Ants don't, for example.

 

[PsychoticEpisode]

OK, I'm giving up on LG as theism's spokesperson. Time for other viewpoints. I'm looking for answers, not science fiction. Surely some other theists would like to tackle some of the questions I posed him.

Here are a couple:

1. If God has been around forever then He needed a place to exist. Where did this place come from?

2. God is given credit for creating life. If He has been alive forever then how did He create His own life?

 

[lightgigantic]

The matter hasn't come up.

Well it does come up for Dennet et al but not you ... hence the difference in POV

So? We were talking about your attempt to assume the consequent, in a debate, and dismiss any arguments that failed to so assume.

Actually we are talking about your assumption that there are no pedagogical issues of requirement that frame theistic claims

I'm calling you on bullshit.

hehe

which is the general stalemate of all conflicts of value

You will cease requiring that others accept your assumptions when those assumptions are the matter under discussion, or no debate - just more ridicule.

will the irony never end?

Interesting that you, also, recognize the superiority of the position once granted.

Interesting that you can't see how such a modus operandi grants superiority regardless of the issue being discussed ....

The motive for deflecting the debate away from that position and into gibberish concealing question-begging assumptions becomes obvious, no?

meh

any idiot can parody technical language (and of course exceptionally talented comedians)

Not necessarily, however - circumstantial. Ants don't, for example.

I wasn't aware that ants had access to these

 

[iceaura]

Well it does come up for Dennet et al

And for me, in relevant contexts. This hasn't been one of them.

Actually we are talking about your assumption that there are no pedagogical issues of requirement that frame theistic claims

No. We are talking about your avoidance of relevant meaning in all of that verbiage.

There is no such thing as a "pedagogical issue of requirement" that prevents you from discussing the existence of deity honestly on this forum - i.e. without first assuming the existence of your particular favorite.

 

[lightgigantic]

And for me, in relevant contexts. This hasn't been one of them.

If you have a context for reductionism that doesn't rely on being reduced to something , well, thats certainly a novel concept ...

No. We are talking about your avoidance of relevant meaning in all of that verbiage.

on the contrary all you are doing is relying on parody to avoid having a meaningful discussion
:shrug:

There is no such thing as a "pedagogical issue of requirement" that prevents you from discussing the existence of deity honestly on this forum - i.e. without first assuming the existence of your particular favorite.

huh?
and you think its possibly sane to discuss a pedagogical issue of application bereft of the material that frame it?

At the very least there are quite good reasons why theory tends to be taught before application .....

 

[iceaura]

If you have a context for reductionism that doesn't rely on being reduced to something , well, thats certainly a novel concept .

Irrelevant to this discussion, and badly confused as usual (reductionism is its own context? A context somehow relies on being reduced?). The subject is no doubt fascinating in some other thread.

n the contrary all you are doing is relying on parody to avoid having a meaningful discussion

Just inviting you to quit screwing around and either join the discussion or go away.

and you think its possibly sane to discuss a pedagogical issue of application bereft of the material that frame it?

I think it is possible to have a discussion about the existence of deity without a priori assuming the existence and nature of somebody's favorite God.

In fact, I think that's the only way.

And there's no pedagogy happening in your posts, so you don't have to worry about the framing of the issue of the application of whatever it is you are pleased to call a "theory". ( Or the issue of the framing of the application. Or the application of the issue of the framing. Or the framing of the application of the issue. Or whatever. )

 

[wynn]

I think it is possible to have a discussion about the existence of deity without a priori assuming the existence and nature of somebody's favorite God.

In fact, I think that's the only way.

So you seem to think it is possible for humans to learn the truth about God all on their own, without God or anyone else helping them with that.

Do you think this is a reasonable proposition?
If yes, can you justify it?

 

[iceaura]

So you seem to think it is possible for humans to learn the truth about God all on their own, without God or anyone else helping them with that.

If you could find the quote of mine that "seemed" to say any such thing, I will happily correct it or you, depending.

 

[wynn]

Could you just clarify, please:

Do you think that it is possible for humans to learn the truth about God all on their own, without God or anyone else helping them with that?

Yes or No?

 

[iceaura]

Yes or No?

Go away.

 

[wynn]

Go away.

You are being unkind.

 

[lightgigantic]

Irrelevant to this discussion, and badly confused as usual (reductionism is its own context? A context somehow relies on being reduced?).

well -um - the context for reductionism is physics (at least according to Dennet et al).
I can't fathom why you are having difficulty with this, save for scrounging around for some sort of anal detail to inhibit progressive discussion.
:shrug:

The subject is no doubt fascinating in some other thread.

Just inviting you to quit screwing around and either join the discussion or go away.

On the contrary, parody isn't generally celebrated as such a great means for such purposes ....

I think it is possible to have a discussion about the existence of deity without a priori assuming the existence and nature of somebody's favorite God.

I wasn't aware that attributing god with omni qualities or as the summum bonum is simply putting forward one's favourite god, as you pu tit .

In fact, I think that's the only way.

Sure.
Its a standard technique of atheism to corrupt the terms that convey god,
It makes forming an argument so much easier.

And there's no pedagogy happening in your posts, so you don't have to worry about the framing of the issue of the application of whatever it is you are pleased to call a "theory".

hehe
If there was a consensus that the facilitators of learning programs were the sole causes of fault, there would be no need for student grades.

( Or the issue of the framing of the application. Or the application of the issue of the framing. Or the framing of the application of the issue. Or whatever. )

still struggling at the point of theory I see ....

 

[iceaura]

well -um - the context for reductionism is physics (at least according to Dennet et al).

You really need to start paying attention to the meanings of your words. And don't slander Dennett like that - it's rude. He's not here to defend himself.

I wasn't aware that attributing god with omni qualities or as the summum bonum is simply putting forward one's favourite god, as you pu tit

Live and learn. Emphasis on the latter. Then stop doing it.

Its a standard technique of atheism to corrupt the terms that convey god

Atheism has no techniques. Terms do not convey god. Nonsense is not argument. Assuming the consequent is nonsense.

still struggling at the point of theory I see ....

Haven't got there yet - no theory in sight. Having a lot of gibberish dancing on something does not mean there's a point of any kind, actually.

No contrition or apology either, for some appallingly bad manners. Apparently this captain's going down with their shit.

 

[lightgigantic]

You really need to start paying attention to the meanings of your words. And don't slander Dennett like that - it's rude. He's not here to defend himself.

with patrons like yourself to speak in his defense, he's probably thankful

Live and learn. Emphasis on the latter. Then stop doing it.

sound advice for yourself also

Atheism has no techniques.

Sure it does - namely corrupting the definition of god to make for an easier argument. Think of it as a derivative of straw manning

Terms do not convey god.

I guess if you were really clever you could provide an example of an idea that does not draw on terms ....

Nonsense is not argument.

Which, strangely enough, is more or less what parody operates out of ....

Assuming the consequent is nonsense.

Relying on parody alone to avoid the actual means of a claim is even greater nonsense

Haven't got there yet - no theory in sight. Having a lot of gibberish dancing on something does not mean there's a point of any kind, actually.

must be your poor fund of knowledge

No contrition or apology either, for some appallingly bad manners. Apparently this captain's going down with their shit.

bon voyage captain

 

[iceaura]

Atheism has no techniques.
”
Sure it does - namely corrupting the definition of god to make for an easier argument.

It can't. Atheism is not the kind of thing that can "have" a technique.

And no one here has made any attempts to corrupt any definitions, for any reason. Except you, possibly (it's hard to tell).

Assuming the consequent is nonsense.
”
Relying on parody alone to avoid the actual means of a claim is even greater nonsense

No, it isn't. And it hasn't happened here anyway.

Terms do not convey god.
”
I guess if you were really clever you could provide an example of an idea that does not draw on terms ....

Ideas are not gods.

Really, try to bear down: words have meanings.They are parts of speech. When you try to claim that the context of reductionism is physics, you are babbling. When you babble and it consistently works as part of a debating tactic to dishonestly frame an argument, it looks intentional.

 

[lightgigantic]

It can't. Atheism is not the kind of thing that can "have" a technique.

In as much as you have a (poor) argument, you have a technique

And no one here has made any attempts to corrupt any definitions, for any reason. Except you, possibly (it's hard to tell).

when you start insisting that it is alien to introduce an omni quality to a discussion on god, its pretty obvious whose hat you're feathering ...

No, it isn't. And it hasn't happened here anyway.

Ideas are not gods.

bu things (including god) are discussed by the ideas that define them

Really, try to bear down: words have meanings.They are parts of speech. When you try to claim that the context of reductionism is physics, you are babbling. When you babble and it consistently works as part of a debating tactic to dishonestly frame an argument, it looks intentional.

similarly constantly labeling something as babble without explaining why is also a tool of dishonesty.

It s not even clear why you suggest that the context of reductionism (as it is proposed by Dennet et al) is not physics or why the use of the word "context" is unsuitable.

All you can do is drive home your values with animosity in a style stereotypical of the fanatical Christians you abhor.
:shrug:

 

[iceaura]

In as much as you have a (poor) argument, you have a technique

No.

And irrelevant. Atheism doesn't "have an argument".

when you start insisting that it is alien to introduce an omni quality to a discussion on god,

Please quote, rather than misrepresent. Especially in babble mode - I don't post like that.

bu things (including god) are discussed by the ideas that define them

You don't discuss things "by ideas", the ideas of things do not define them, and the original comment rebuked was about conveying, not discussing, a god, not an idea.

It s not even clear why you suggest that the context of reductionism (as it is proposed by Dennet et al) is not physics or why the use of the word "context" is unsuitable.

So break out the dictionary, discover what "reductionism" means and what "physics" is, realize that reductionism operates far outside the bounds of physics or any science or science in general, that Dennett is not proposing "the context of reductionism", and so forth.

 

[PsychoticEpisode]

If God has always been alive somewhere, then life and existence are not of His doing. Why has He been given credit for these creations when He couldn't possibly have done either?

 

[lightgigantic]

No.

And irrelevant. Atheism doesn't "have an argument".

sure it does
google "atheistic philosophy"

Please quote, rather than misrepresent. Especially in babble mode - I don't post like that.

well you've just been whining for the past two dozen posts about how I am bringing a personal version of god do the table.
All I've discussed is omnipotency.
:shrug:

You don't discuss things "by ideas",

the ideas of things do not define them, and the original comment rebuked was about conveying, not discussing, a god, not an idea.

well once again, I guess if you were really clever you could provide an example of conveying something without using ideas ....

(atheism doesn't have an argument, terms do not convey ideas, discussion doesn't involve ideas ...... meh .... and to think I stand accused of babble )

So break out the dictionary, discover what "reductionism" means and what "physics" is, realize that reductionism operates far outside the bounds of physics or any science or science in general, that Dennett is not proposing "the context of reductionism", and so forth.

So tell us what far reaching aspects of reductionism Dennet makes reference to (btw, which happen to be his ideas on the subject, just to belabour a point from above) outside of physics.
/grabs popcorn