Peanut Gallery for redneF vs. Mr_Metaphysics
Offline I see Mr_M has finally returned.
Okay. Give me some other meanings of the term and tell me which methodology denies that if premises of an argument are all true and the form is valid, then the conclusion may be false?
That is fine, but it requires you to know, ie prove, that the "premises of an argument are all true" in the actual world.
In particular, S5 in Modal Logic assumes that you know that X is 'possibly necessary', which, for such an entity, would require complete knowledge of Reality, including the actual nature of 'God'.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
- Login to post comments
He's already boxed himself into Metaphysics.
Again.
He's lost before he's begun. He just doesn't understand how it's possible/impossible.
He really doesn't.
It doesn't even take much imagination to do it.
I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks
" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris
According to Mr_Met, a perfectly sensible and decent chap if his tone be true, this is the definition of god:
"An eternal, immaterial, self-existent being."
Could some friggin' person explain to me what the f**k this means? How can something be described as immaterial. Exactly what the bejebus is immaterial? Who would claim such a thing - that immaterial is a property of an object or an entity?
It defies comprehension.
Oh, and eternal. WTF is that when it's at home? Eternal. What a crock. Groan. I'm going to jog home down the middle of the Anzac Bridge. Hopefully I get hit by a truck and no longer have to hear such total bosh from a fellow smart enough to know better.
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
By my definition, material is anything that has an influence on something else. Immaterial is then, without influence, and therefore importance. How does that sound?
Then, we're talking about METAphysics, physics from things that are OUTside of our world, and therefore outside of the four dimensions, one of which is time. Eternal doesn't mean anything outside of time...
Eternal: I think, eternal means that God has always existed. But, they try to define the term so that it avoids the problem of "time," so they can have their cake and eat it too. You could think of it as God is a being that never starts or stops existing.
Immaterial: is not much different from supernatural. We can't observe it. It doesn't produce any affects. This avoids empiricism.
Self-existent being: Looks like the beginning of the OA. Self-existent things exist, lol.
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
Watch this video for a brief statement of why it's important to draw a clear distinction between 'immaterial' and 'non-physical':
Then if you need more detail, check out the wikipedia article on Physicalism.
There are physical things which could conceivably be called 'immaterial', in the sense that they are not specifically matter, and yet they exist.
I suspect MrM has something else in mind when he speaks of 'immaterial'. He probably has in mind 'non-physical'.
If you draw this clear distinction, and stick with defending physicalism instead of 'materialism', then the argument will go much more smoothly, and you'll find yourself with lots of ammunition against any non-physicalist position. Ultimately, he'll have to define non-physical as being *unable* to be supported by reliable evidence, and then you invoke Occam's Razor, and the surgery of supernaturalism-ectomy is complete.
Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!
Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!
Mr. M... Why can't Red make presuppositions?
You're criticizing Red for making presuppositions when your entire ontological argument is just that -- a presupposition. You presuppose a god exists, then conclude that a god exists...
“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”
He's equivocating. It doesn't bother me.
I'll address those allegations of his, along with his allegations that I was 'indoctrinated', in a subsequent post.
I've found the kingpin in the TAG type arguments. It was hidden in the way it was structured. If you restructure it differently, the flaw jumps out in the open. It is a circular argument that outputs the presupposition.
But there are many other 'can't see the forest for the trees' flaws as well. There are problems all over the place.
I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks
" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris