View Single Post
Old 04-06-2007, 01:48 AM   #94
Mike Doolittle
Telling people how it is
 
Mike Doolittle's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: In a shoe with my old lady
Posts: 3,758
Rep Power: 20 Mike Doolittle is on a distinguished road
Send a message via AIM to Mike Doolittle
Re: The Root of all Evil/Trobule With Atheism

Continued....

Quote:
It is not nonsense. You are making a claim about the universe and if were ever found to be true, it would have to be written in science books. (Hell, it would be the greatest discovery of all.)
No, I'm not making a scientific claim because I'm talking about something that is intrinsically beyond the understanding of science and beyond the natural world. That the laws of physics indicate that these things likely do exist does not render their existence wholly reducible to naturalistic observation since these things are intrinsically supernatural. The only way you're able to make any of your arguments work is by defining God as something constrained by the laws of the universe he created, which is in complete conflict with any culture's definition of what God is. You do a great job of disproving God's existence when you change God's defintion to suit your intentions.

Quote:
I really don't get it. How are you saying that belief in your god is logical, but you're god is not? I mean, excuse me, but in what case is belief in something illogical considered logical?.
There's a distinction between illogical and beyond logic. I'm not sure why it's so difficult for you to understand that physical laws of our universe can point us to things that are beyond our capacity of understanding – you want all matters of faith to be reducible to naturally constrained laws. It doesn't work that way.

Quote:
What is more likely the case is that you realize that your god is not logical and simply don't want that fact to be exposed.
You're just getting desperate now. You've simply avoided or misrepresented a hefty portion of what I've argued (I'm spending each post re-correcting you on the same shit over and over), so I don't think you're in any position to be proclaiming some sort of victory here. You've repeatedly cornered yourself with your own positivist reductionism, and the only way you've been able to sustain this thread is by putting words into my mouth and then fabricating arguments about the words you made up. There's a term for that, one you like to use. Something about straw...

Quote:
Let me see if I can get this straight: God is a logical necessity yet he cannot be examined logically because logic is a branch of naturalism (a false claim, by the way) and God is unmoved by the tenants of naturalism because he is supernatural. (And save the "this isn't what I said" line because it is.) I mean, wow--there had better be a big piece of cheese at the end of that maze.
I did not say God was a logical necessity. Jesus H. Christ on a bicycle, I have corrected you on that every fucking post. I said that a transcendent, supernatural origin to our universe is a necessity because our universe can be neither self-causing or self-perpetuating. When you start talking about a supernatural cause, that sure sounds like God to me. When we see the immaculate order of the universe and of our world, that sure looks like design to me. But it's not proof that God exists. I never claimed it was. I stated quite bluntly on numerous occasions that it wasn't. This isn't a complicated concept dude.

On the latter point, yes, God is and has always been supernatural. That's what God is. If I write a videogame that has a living world with complex physics and AI routines, I've created that world. Everything in that world is bound by the rules I set for it. I, however, am not bound by those rules. To the videogame world, I'm supernatural. Asserting that a creative, supernatural God should be constrained by natural law is obvious nonsense. If God could create the universe, why would he be bound by its laws?

Quote:
Perhaps the most pathetic point in your argument was your failed attempt to demonstrate that I had no standard for belief.
You're just reducing it to an argument over semantics. I'm drawing a line between belief as a line of reasoning and belief as knowledge. You believe only in what you can quantitatively know. That may fit a broad definition of the word, but it's not really believing in anything, it's just an affirmation. It's like getting into a bar fight, getting punched in the face, and saying "I believe that guy just punched me in the face!" The only thing pathetic is that you're dragging it out.

Believe whatever the hell you want, Nic.
__________________
RIP "littledoc"!

My MySpace Page
My Gaming PC Blog

Last edited by Mike Doolittle; 04-06-2007 at 12:41 PM.
Mike Doolittle is offline   Reply With Quote