View Single Post
Old 04-08-2007, 09:58 PM   #98
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: 22 Mike Doolittle is on a distinguished road
Send a message via AIM to Mike Doolittle
Re: The Root of all Evil/Trobule With Atheism

Originally Posted by Nicato View Post
The problem with your description of what "faith in God" is is that one does not have to have "faith in God" to realize the limitations of knowledge nor perception.
Well duh. That's not the point. The point is that faith is not an arbitrary construct.

Fun fact: The same simulation software which causes us to have lucid hallucinations in our sleep comes with the side effect of assigning agency to our environment. It's why we mistake a coat rack in the dark for a person. If ideas can replicate themselves, infect other minds, and evolve, then it is no mystery how this "connection to the spiritual" has arisen--through clearly natural causes.
How does an abstraction "replicate itself"?

Contrary to your notion that I haven't shown your fallacy, you've actually conceded it when you said that your premises couldn't be proven.
That wasn't a concession; the fact that you think it was just continues to show that you just. don't. get it.

Yeah, Creationists (the "they" in my quote) believe that man was made directly from God while Evolution says that we were made indirectly from a process spanning some billions of years and that our "image" is only such because of environmental pressures (not theological influences).
Right. Why is this even still being discussed? Oh yeah, because you aren't paying attention. This is the first thing I addressed when you brought this up. Yes, it refuted a literal interpretation of a creation allegory. That refutes God as the Creator how, exactly?

What is getting old is your double standard. You've gotten my position wrong a number of times (by your own admission) and yet we I accuse you of distortion, you're quick to say it was an honest misunderstanding. Yet, whenever (if ever) I get your position wrong, I'm being all malicious.
I didn't say you were being malicious for getting my position wrong. You were being malicious for all the bigoted vitriol you were spewing. A misunderstanding is one thing, but when I have to re-correct you over the same freakin' points on every posts because you can't seem to grasp the basics of what I'm saying, you're either ignoring most of it or desperately trying to create a straw man.

It is you who have repeatedly said that I believe that anything which exists must be necessarily be observable--a strawman I've had to tear down several times--lest we forget.
That's not what I said. Again, you miss the point. God dammit, I have addressed this directly numerous times. Listen: while you can accept the posibility of transcent realities, since these realities are not contained within the boundaries of what you can quantify, they may as well not exist. The problem is, the reality of the natural shows that there may very well be a supernatural.

It isn't that logic isn't separate from naturalism, it's just that naturalism is a logical philosophy.
The very concept of logic is something that arises purely from our natural state and its inherent limitations.

So now that I've demonstrated that logic is distinct from naturalism, you can demonstrate how your god is logical.
1. You need to learn that there is a difference between making an argument for something and "demonstrating" something. The only thing you demonstrated is your ignorance of the subject at hand.

2. The entire point behind everything I've written is that natural phenomena show evidence of design, order, creation, and the supernatural. Is the universe spontaneously coming into existence out of nothing any more logical than a Creative God? And before you go accusing me of a false dichotomy, remember that while there is much evidence for God's reality, we have to first acknowledge the reality of the supernatural. There is still room for a supernatural reality that has nothing to do with God, such as the multiverses of String Theory.

We see order, and our perception gives us the illusion of design (just as it did for life on Earth), but we don't see purpose, not objectively anyway.
By what criterion do you assume our perception of design and order to be an illusion? How can you objectively demonstrate that it is an illusion, and not reality?

I've already demonstrated (and you've already conceded) that limitations essentially say nothing as to the requirement of anything beyond, yet you continue to boast it about as if it were evidence of anything.
Again you are not "demonstrating" jack squat. The finite point of origin of the universe most certainly does point to the need of something beyond. Or, perhaps you'd care to posture, theoretically of course, how all space, time, energy and matter spontaneously came into existence. If scientists didn't accept the necessity of a beyond, String Theory wouldn't spend so much time trying to explain the origin of the universe by the way of supernatural realities.
RIP "littledoc"!

My MySpace Page
My Gaming PC Blog

Last edited by Mike Doolittle; 04-08-2007 at 10:01 PM.
Mike Doolittle is offline   Reply With Quote