If it's OK with you all I would like to engage in dialog with one of you at a time until one of us says no longer wants to interact with the other. All of you seem to be arguing on the same side, but I'm only one person. I cannot respond to you all, but I want to. If you all can agree to restrain yourselves until the active opponent steps aside, I think we can have an interesting dialog. If anyone who is not the active responder posts, I will not respond to your comments unless it's to notify of changes or updates. I would like begin with HisWillness. Please wait for my post if your comment is aimed at me; otherwise continue to talk amongst yourselves.

__________________________________________________________

If it makes you feel better to think that I'm Matt, you can call me matt2. And Christians don't hate atheists, we hate falsehood and blind ignorant faith.

Are we on BOB?

I concede the argument regarding "sensing" UV rays; nevertheless they are "physical" because with "expensive equipment and experiment" we can detect them and/or reproduce them.

Do you care to continue the discussion? To discuss the the validity of materialist views especially in regards to human intelligence, argumentation, logic, morality, science, knowledge, and all the rest?

I wouldn't blame you if you choose not to considering that these discussions expose the materialist worldview (including evolution) to be ridiculous  because of its arbitrary, inconsistent, and contradictory nature.

It is the theistic "worldview" that fits this description. I must put the term "worldview' in quotes seeing as there really is no such thing as a theist worldview... seeing as theistic terms are incoherent, you must actually steal from materialism.

I prove this here:

http://www.rationalresponders.com/quotgodquot_incoherent_term

and here

http://www.rationalresponders.com/supernatural_and_immaterial_are_broken_concepts

To make any coherent reference, you must steal from materialism.

In addition, you reference cosmology in an earlier thread. Modern cosmology also shows that theistic arguments for creation are equally nonsensical:

http://www.rationalresponders.com/common_cosmological_misconceptions

If you choose to respond to any of these points, please: keep your responses brief. You have as yet to demonstrate an ability to even follow my arguments, so your responses so far are a waste of time. A brief response will allow me to correct your basic errors before we continue.

Not really, you don't seem to even have arguments.

I said there can't be a theist worldview, period, as theism as supernaturalism is incoherent. You must steal from the concept of materialism.

Please stop your lying. I've put this argument forward for you already in my citations.

So this is the great todangst and his arguments. It's so laughable. Using standards that favor his worldview of materialism to disprove a conflicting worldview.

A worldview that if true would (1) make human thoughts and rationality nothing more than complex chemical reactions automatically (involuntarily) occurring in the brain of man so that in theory there's really no such thing as human intelligence just simply what is (as weeds grow so the "mind" of man does whatever it does by the laws of science). That itself should make impossible the "voluntary" science that you practice, the voluntary moral judgments that you pass, and the  voluntary side you choose in this discussion. However even granting you voluntary thoughts and behavior, you still have to contend with (2) morality that is relative; nothing is ever really wrong or right because it's all relative. The rape and torture of small children is neither right nor wrong depending on the attitudes of those with power and/or in authority. That's what you get when theirs no obligatory authority.

What is truth in a purely materialist world? According to some of you, (3) truth is at best probability yet somehow you can arbitrarily chose to ignore this rule and make such "truth" claims as God is impossible or the supernatural is impossible. Your claims on knowledge are inconsistent with your pronouncements. I think I would have more respect for you if you said that Christian truth claims were highly improbable, that would at least be consistent with your claims on knowledge.

I predicted that you would dodge the objection.

Whether your claims against me are true or not (I argue the latter), this objection is still here.

First of all, Mr. beg the question, why must I subject myself to your anti-religious, pro-physical only view of the universe standards?

I don't need to pull anything like what you're doing to disprove materialism/evolution. My objection that you conveniently dodged is based on your own materialist assumption (that the universe is only physical). Your own assumption is hanging your own materialist view of the universe (theory of evolution not excluded).

Again as I've stated these standards that you subject religion to are biased and I am by no means obligated to accept them. Now I have appealed to logic and have shown the logical outcome of a physical only universe subject to immutable laws results in involuntary bio-electrochemical reactions (regardless of complexity) thus rendering human rationality, argumentation, science, morality, and all the related things that humans do, involuntary and therefore, meaningless. Now you can reject logic and I'll happily move on.

And by the way, because your claims are supported by biased standards that I'm under no obligation to accept, they remain unproven pronouncements and therefore naked assertions.

Says who? You? Who made you the "authority" on morality to say what it is and what it isn't? Begging the question as usual.

And those numbered reasons you gave; you use an arbitrary moral standard to morally judge the standard that "God" imposes on the world. Once again, if morality is relative how dare you judge someone else (granted you don't believe that God exists, I'll say for the sake of argument that they're my morals. Again how dare you be so judgmental and to judge me). Begging the question (regarding your standard to be the standard to accept over all the rest) and not only that contradicting yourself; if morality is whatever man makes it, it doesn't matter if the majority agrees, the minority, and certainly not the individual, you shouldn't (based on the concept moral relativism) condemn anyone for what they chose. Once you start reasoning why aspects of  your standard are superior against somebody else's, you've already contradicted the idea of moral relativism.

The sad thing is I do, but it's as I pointed out, based on biased standards that I'm not obligated to accept (on that basis, your assertions are naked - unproven pronouncements). I pointed out that regardless of whether your arguments are proven to be right (I say they're not), you have to answer how in an materialist universe, a materialist view of the universe, you can have argumentation, science, morality, and all the rest if human thoughts and actions are involuntary (molecules in motion)? Remember this objection was formulated based on your own materialist worldview's assumptions.

_____________________________________________________________________

No rush to respond immediately. Take your time to respond to the objection if you decide not to dodge it this time around. I'll be busy so if I don't respond in a few days don't be upset. Also this may be personal, but what is your profession? Are you a chemist, biologist, physicist, surgeon, etc?

One last question, who's that a picture of (your account picture)?

Are you a fan of todangst?

I felt a need to respond lest he read this and think you're right and waste another round with gibberish.

if todangst wants to I'll bring some of the "proof" from those link to show you that they're nothing more than the opinions of other anti religious pro physical only atheists.

I on the other have used materialist's own assumptions about the universe and put it to the test. I've used logic and deduced that if the universe is only physical and immutable laws are what govern the physical, then everything and all things are the result of involuntary chemical reactions.

And I have pointed out that if his claims about religious talk are incoherent because of reasons given by anti religious/pro physical only advocates; whether it is true or not (I claim it's not) he has a problem with his theory (the assumptions of his theory).

He will not be able to answer the question unless he either concedes that the universe is comprised on non physical things also or that the "laws" that govern the universe are not always uniform.

Now I've read from people in this thread already that choice/"voluntary" will is illusory. Does todangst agree with this? Do you? If you do it doesn't help your case to disprove what I've been saying about the materialist view; that it makes all human thoughts and behaviors to be involuntary and therefore rendering reason, argumentation, science, morality, the study of history meaningless. What happens in the universe is simply what happens; it's involuntary.

Take it a step further and we would have to conclude that the iPhone G3 (or any invention of man) was involuntarily made; matter made it.

Awesome. I want that on a t-shirt.

After this exchange, let's not reply anymore. I'm waiting for todangst. Unless he wants you to speak for him, I have no qualms with that. A materialist is a materialist to me; whatever the position they take, it's refutable. This, I'm confident of.

________________________________________________________

Are you denying the two points made that the universe is physical and that immutable laws govern the physical (is todangst going to deny these two points)?

the laws of logic:

The laws of logic are not conventional or sociological; if they were we might have different societies that use different laws of logic. It might be appropriate in some societies to say both my car is in the parking lot and it's not the case that my car is in the parking lot. That is to say there are certain societies that have a convention that says "go ahead contradict yourselves". There are in a sense subgroups within our own society that might think that way. Thieves have a tendency to say this not my wallet but it's not the case that it's not my wallet. They might engage in contradiction like that, but I don't think any of us would want to accept it.

The laws of logic have a transcendental necessity about them. They are universal, they are invariant, they are not material in nature.

The laws of logic are abstract entities; non individual or universal in character they are not materialistic. As universal they are not experienced to be true, there may be experiences whereby the laws of logic are used but no one has universal experience, no has tried every possible instance of the law of logic. As invariant they don’t fit into what most materialist tells us about the constantly changing nature of the world.

In the Christian theistic worldview universal invariant abstract entities such as the laws of logic can exist.

Within the Christian theistic worldview you cannot contradict yourself because to so do you engage in the nature of lying and that’s contrary to the character of God as we perceive it.

The question for you materialist is: How can there be laws of logic in a materialist universe and how are they justified.

You don't believe this and I don't expect you to given your presupposed notion of the physical and your denial of God, but because God is not physical, such laws that apply to the physical cannot apply to him. Furthermore, the "laws" (imposed on the physical) that we observe are the result of God's sovereign governing of His physical creation. God is a law unto Himself. Again you may not believe it but it's the logical proceeding of the claim "all things were made by God and are sustained by Him".

The "mind" of man is not "physical". Now don't confuse the mind with the gray matter in the skull although man does often use the two interchangeably.

From the creaturely understanding of the Creator, God purposes and doesn't change His mind, He doesn't lie (He's perfectly coherent), He doesn't add or subtract anything to or from himself (knowledge, experience, etc) to be more or less complete, etc. So yes He is in that sense, immutable.

If the world is only physical and immutable laws govern the physical world then yes, one would have to deduce that volition is impossible.

That is why the majority of people on planet earth are theists. From a Christians explanation, its because God created the universe and sustains and imposes His sovereign governing so that no part of the universe is devoid of His revelation coupled with the claim that He created man in His image. Just as God has volition, is absolutely coherent, and is triune (possessing personality) so we have volition, have personalities, and reason & make moral judgments (when reason and morality is properly used, there's the absence of contradictions and inconsistencies, and falsehood). Man cannot hide from Him because he cannot hide from himself.

Now how God controls everything but at the same allows man to possess free will is something God knows and can accomplish. We don't know how it's done, we can't know how it's done because of our finite nature, and we don't need to know - to function and the epistemology that arises from this "setup" agrees with it. His knowledge is primary, our can only be a reflective/receptive reconstruction of His primary knowledge. He reveals knowledge to us through the created order, through us by virtue of being made in his image, and by supernatural revelation (His word - prophetic, written, or living - Jesus Christ).

Of course you would think like this because in your own eyes, you're autonomous, you yourself are the point of reference for all prediction - whether it be knowledge, morality, etc and reject the necessary conditions that God provides to even know anything at all.

____________________________________________________

Again you don't believe this and I don't expect you to considering your anti religious pro physical only view of the universe; however each Christian claim complements each other and does not contradict each other and does not contradict anything we observe in the physical world.

Note I have not spoken in detail about a lot of other things like morality, science, etc so you'll get the chance to find contradictions (it won't happen though) within my worldview.

However I have already presented you with a problem that arises from you worldview's claims.

A worldview that if true would (1) make human thoughts and rationality nothing more than complex chemical reactions automatically (involuntarily) occurring in the brain of man so that in theory there's really no such thing as human intelligence just simply what is (as weeds grow so the "mind" of man does whatever it does by the laws of science). That itself should make impossible the "voluntary" science that you practice, the voluntary moral judgments that you pass, and the  voluntary side you choose in this discussion. However even granting you voluntary thoughts and behavior, you still have to contend with (2) morality that is relative; nothing is ever really wrong or right because it's all relative. The rape and torture of small children is neither right nor wrong depending on the attitudes of those with power and/or in authority. That's what you get when theirs no obligatory authority.

What is truth in a purely materialist world? According to some of you, (3) truth is at best probability yet somehow you can arbitrarily chose to ignore this rule and make such "truth" claims as God is impossible or the supernatural is impossible. Your claims on knowledge are inconsistent with your pronouncements. I think I would have more respect for you if you said that Christian truth claims were highly improbable, that would at least be consistent with your claims on knowledge.

Try not to dodge it.

You'll have to explain to me what PMs are. Popular Mechanics? I'm not familiar with this acronym.

No fair. I was reading this.

He's not going to talk to me until/unless he hears from Tod so I figured I'd try to keep the thread on something like a track.

Besides, I've no experience in this I just have more questions than answers.

Yay !

I haven't stuck my head in this topic since I was restricted to PS3 typing. Doesn't look like anything intelligent or accurate ever came from this particular tool of theism. Hardly a surprise. Also not too surprised he gave up. I owned him completely, and others did just as good of a job. Still, I may have one or two things more to say when I get my hands on a PC.