Theistic discussion of "The God Delusion"

I guess having an intelligent discussion on this topic relies on listening to at least a good ten or twenty minutes of the audio link
:shrug:
 
light said:
since you are continuing on the weakest form of the argument, it seems like you didn't listen to the audio presentation
Click to expand...
Since you have never shown any comprehension of Dawkins' fairly simple, pop-philosophy argument as written out for you in standard English prose, your recommendation of some garbled, half hour, tangentially relevant rant that would take five minutes to read, debug, and dismiss in prose is not attractive.

Post a transcript, or recap the thing in a couple of sentences, or something.

The title of the thread, chosen by you, is "theistic discussion of "the God Delusion".
 
lightgigantic said:
since you are continuing on the weakest form of the argument, it seems like you didn't listen to the audio presentation
:shrug:
Click to expand...

Why would you interpret my words that way? In fact I agree with you on every point. Don't you know that observation of my posts is subjective? My assertion that I agree with you is equally valid to your assertion that I don't.
 
Sarkus said:
Observer-dependent is when the fact / event relies on being observed to occur - but interpretation of that event is still subjective.
Click to expand...


the sequence is invalid
an event cannot occur until observed. one cannot observe what has not occurred thus the event will never occur
 
baumgarten said:
Nigga plz. READ what you link to.
Click to expand...


all in good time dipshit. i rather read what you wrote

baumgarten said:
What I have described is a situation in which the observer is literally inseparable from the actual event.........undefined, they are identical to one another.
Click to expand...


this is perfect. perhaps a midway point between a independant reality and a dependant one. a point i however find mind blowing in complexity upon examination. then again it could be descartes tweaked. for instance..."i think therefore i am"

the implication seems to be thinking produces a thinker. unlikely. however the semantics could also allow for absolute dependence. contained within the notion of a thinker is the further notion of thinking. i think the reverse formulation should also hold up in a similar manner.. the thoughts themselves appear irrelevant. making distinctions apparent physical objects and say..mathematical abstractions does not shed any new light on the experience itself nor on the experiencer

baumgarten said:
Another example: on the way out of the local Wal-Mart,...sense of reality we will ever have.
Click to expand...


crappy analogies that are easily explained away thru biology

baumgarten said:
In light of this, to posit any objective thing that is always thus or thence completely regardless of who understands it as such is to say that there is something beyond the human understanding which contributes to the way the world works, an absolutely mysterious entity
Click to expand...


objectivity is defined by concurrence and thus requires a plurality. an epistemolgical principle perhaps. since this shared reality is rather apparent and pervasive, it really is pointless if i were to assert an initial subjective state to be of more value simply because of precedence. the opposite is actually far more likely.

/thoughts 'r us
 
iceaura said:
Since you have never shown any comprehension of Dawkins' fairly simple, pop-philosophy argument as written out for you in standard English prose, your recommendation of some garbled, half hour, tangentially relevant rant that would take five minutes to read, debug, and dismiss in prose is not attractive.

Post a transcript, or recap the thing in a couple of sentences, or something.

The title of the thread, chosen by you, is "theistic discussion of "the God Delusion".
Click to expand...
and lo and behold, the link in the OP is a theistic discussion of "God Delusion"

if you don't have the patience to sit through the first 3 minutes of technical difficulties, maybe you should get back to things more befitting your attention span
 
lightgigantic said:
.........sit through the first 3 minutes of technical difficulties, ....
Click to expand...

/roftl

buddy
have you any idea how annoying your fucking avatar is?

hey!
if you want i'll read your avatar for you.
$50 - today only

hey
are you a theist?
whats yer angle?
 
Last edited:
spidergoat said:
He gives them all the hearing they deserve.

The first three:
All three of these arguments rely upon the idea of a regress and invoke God to terminate it. They make the entirely unwarranted assumption that God himself is immune to regress.

4. The argument from Degree. God exists because we need something that is the maximum (of perfection, goodness) by which to compare human goodness.

5. Argument from Design. Things look designed. Nothing that we know looks designed unless it is designed, therefore there must have been a designer and we call him God.
Click to expand...

Oh well that takes care of that then.

GO HOME NOW....THERE'S NOTHING TO SEE HERE....IT'S ALL BEEN TAKEN CARE OF........JUST MOVE ALONG.

Jan.
 
spidergoat said:
That is ridiculous. Of course Dawkins is sincere about his arguments. The best Lightgigantic can come up with is that standardized symbols, such as those used in scientific measurements, are subjective. By that notion, why can he understand the words I print on the screen?
Click to expand...

Have you listened to the talk?

Jan.
 
lightgigantic said:
and lo and behold, the link in the OP is a theistic discussion of "God Delusion"

if you don't have the patience to sit through the first 3 minutes of technical difficulties, maybe you should get back to things more befitting your attention span
Click to expand...

You are the last person to be talking about attention spans.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top