[Vox]

Pyrotex said:

Reading your posts and trying to understand them has been rather painful.

Who is the one who is creating this pain ?

[jedaisoul]

C1ay said:

Not at all. THe only thing wrong is your assumption that you can solve the debate about the existence of a deity with logic alone. You obviously don't comprehend the limits of that endeavor. You belief is just that, your belief. It is NOT scientific evidence of anything though.

I agree, but I think it is worthwhile to expand on the limitation of deductive logic. Basically, all that deductive logic does is make explicit things that are implicit in the assumptions. So to conclude logically that God exists, you have to assume that is so in the first place. And that conclusion is only as sound as the assumptions it is based on. So really, it "proves" nothing. Which is what, I suspect, you were saying.

[Pyrotex]

Vox said:

How you can prove, state, belive or whataver way say that these earlier comments are all wrong? Where do you get that kind of superior knowledge of knowing the thruth? No human on earth knows any absolute truth. Only what we can achieve is truthfulness as aim.

It would be really nice if you stopped using cheap rhetorical TRICKS.

Knowledge is, by definition, access to facts.
Facts are, by definition, statements of truth, or true statements.
Superior knowledge, by definition, is access to more truth than those with inferior knowledge.

But nobody said anything about "absolute truth".
Indeed, there is no such thing as absolute truth.
No claims were made that we had absolute truth, because such a claim would be ridiculous.

What we DO have is knowledge. And you seem to want to insult knowledge and those who have it. This is very sad.

I wish you luck in your life. Though, without knowledge, it will likely be a very unaccomplished life.

[Alumno deVerum]

Qfwfq said:

Dear Alumno deVerum,

You have received a warning at Science Forums.

Reason:
-------
Rude and Offensive Behavior

This attitude is antithetical to participation in reasonable discussion. You don't give the slightest reason for describing those points as wrong. Stating this should always be accompanied by reason and the lack of this makes your tone even less acceptable.

Considering that this type of dicussion can so easily degenerate, it is wise to exercise utmost caution. Please try to be cooperative. Continuing such behaviour will lead to infractions and banning.
-------

Original Post:
http://hypography.co...html#post300551

Quote

jedaisoul said:

Firstly I'd point out that the OP is way too long. It should have been placed elsewhere on the web, and an abstract put here. Forums are not the place for major expositions of philosophic ideas. They are the place for discussion of ideas. This could, and should, have been summarized.

Now lets turn to the specifics...


Untrue. A belief needs to be logical. There is no reason to assume that just because you believe something, then it must be logical.


No. It does not provide certain knowledge of our own existence. It only provides certain knowledge of MY existence. Not anyone else. Projecting that as a proof of other peoples existence to themselves does not follow. They could all be a figment of my imagination.


Not true. Logic has nothing to do with "cogito ergo sum". It is a purely abstract field that neither cares, nor needs to care, whether any of its predictions match reality. Logic determines whether a statement is valid, not whether it is sound.


No. The idea that the universe had a "potential" to exist before it DID exist is a theory you have not justified. You have merely assumed it.


We can have a concept of a green troll called Shrek. That does not mean that Shrek actually exists.


This does not follow. Nothingness does not exist. It is not something. Science does not say that the world emerged from nothing. Science says that at moment zero the universe existed. It says nothing prior to that.


True. Concepts exist in our minds.


No. Nothingness has no dimensions, because it does not exist.


No, the evidence does not suggest the world is basically concept. It suggests that the world exists outside our concepts of it.


As I have already pointed out, logic only provides that a conclusion is valid, not that it is sound.

C1ay said:

I did read your essay but it is irrelevant. Deism asserts that the Universe was created by a creator. You cannot deduce via logic whether or not the Universe was created by anything or that it hasn't existed for all eternity for that matter. You also cannot deduce that the existence of anything implies the existence of a creator.

I would like to congratulate both of you for getting every single thing about this wrong! It's quite an accomplishment. You should both be proud! LOL!

Warnings serve as a reminder to you of the forum's rules, which you are expected to understand and follow.

All the best,
Science Forums

Yeah I figured something like this would happen. You know as well as I do this is just an excuse to get rid of me because you don't like what I wrote and you can't refute it without misrepresenting it. I never broke any forum rules and you know it. In fact all I did was point out that you got every single thing in your reply to me wrong because you did get it wrong. And you can't handle that. So I get a "warning" for "rude and offensive behavior". Tell me what's ruder pointing out that what you said is being misrepresented or the misrepresentation itself? The only reason I posted anything here is because I was trying to correct some misconceptions about modern Deism being expressed here. That's it. I don't care if anyone here agrees with me or not. I just don't want to be misrepresented. I never even considered becoming an active member. But you don't care about that. Twisting peoples words around is just fine as long as it's someone you disagree with. Makes it easier to "refute" them. It would be funny if it wasn't so pathetic.

[Vox]

Pyrotex said:

It would be really nice if you stopped using cheap rhetorical TRICKS.

Knowledge is, by definition, access to facts.
Facts are, by definition, statements of truth, or true statements.
Superior knowledge, by definition, is access to more truth than those with inferior knowledge.

But nobody said anything about "absolute truth".
Indeed, there is no such thing as absolute truth.
No claims were made that we had absolute truth, because such a claim would be ridiculous.

What we DO have is knowledge. And you seem to want to insult knowledge and those who have it. This is very sad.

I wish you luck in your life. Though, without knowledge, it will likely be a very unaccomplished life.

My goal is to ask questions, challenge thought patterns, deliberately avoiding too firm attachements to current "statements of truths" "Everything is changing". Only thing which is from my perspective certain is the change and what the history has taught at least to me is that fact`s change..

“The art and science of asking questions is the source of all knowledge.”
Thomas Berger quote

I`ll appreciate more, articles, discussions, arguments which are containing more "questions marks" than "statements of truth"
This is not for all, some look for security, prestige, praise, and feeling of being important from facts and figures and it is OK for me, but do not count me out asking questions even some might say they are, tricks, irrelevant, stupid..it will not effect my way of exploring the life.

And Pyro, please do not insult individuals, religious groups or people who have diffrent views than you. In that respect you are not adding quality to this forum. Please gain knowledge in that area also

[jedaisoul]

Alumno deVerum said:

I never broke any forum rules and you know it. In fact all I did was point out that you got every single thing in your reply to me wrong because you did get it wrong. And you can't handle that.

Alumno, all I ask of you is that you give a reasoned reply to my post:

jedaisoul said:

Not true. Logic has nothing to do with "cogito ergo sum". It is a purely abstract field that neither cares, nor needs to care, whether any of its predictions match reality. Logic determines whether a statement is valid, not whether it is sound.

How difficult is that? That you are convinced you are right is ok. But if you want to post here, you have to justify your claims. Just being convinced you are right is not enough. So, please, let's get back to a civilised discussion. Why did you say I was wrong in this particular comment?

[Qfwfq]

Alumno deVerum said:

I never broke any forum rules and you know it.

From Hypography Science Forums - Science forums rules:

If you want to refute someone's claims, please stay calm and point out where you think they went wrong, and what kind of proof you base your own opinion on.

Statements like "I just know that this is the way it is" (especially when religion is being discussed) are considered ignorant and might be deleted. Likewise, users who have an obvious agenda behind the majority of their posts may be banned.

Rude and offensive behaviour is not tolerated and might lead to instant banning (at the discretion of the forum staff). This includes forum posts, e-mails to users, messages in the chatroom, and private messages.

You appear to not have read the message in the warning, saying exactly what is rude about yhat post. BTW, as you don't seem to have read the rules either, there's another thing in the rules too:

Never post PMs or e-mails from other users without asking their permissions first. PMs and e-mails are considered private communication and posting them is a violation of the other user's right to privacy. If you have received an offending PM or e-mail, send it to one of the admins. Posts containing PMs and e-mails can be deleted by the admins and might get you banned.

But I'll feign having given you permission prior to your post, since there's nothing in my words I would having objected to being published if you had asked me first.

Alumno deVerum said:

In fact all I did was point out that you got every single thing in your reply to me wrong because you did get it wrong.

Me? Can't you keep track of who's who?

Alumno deVerum said:

The only reason I posted anything here is because I was trying to correct some misconceptions about modern Deism being expressed here.

Which modern Deism? I don't see which misconceptions you refer to. Who on these forums was talking about the same "modern Deism" that you are discussing now?

Alumno, that was only a warning. Instead of heeding it, you have had a reaction that makes matters worse.

[dduckwessel]

God created nature.
Science studies nature.
Science is studying God.

God and nature cannot lie so then science is truth = scientific deism.


In God's writings, if there are apparent contradictions with science, then man's interpretation is wrong because God will not contradict his own creation.

[The Polymath]

dduckwessel, on 12 April 2011 - 08:27 PM, said:

God created nature.
Science studies nature.
Science is studying God.

God and nature cannot lie so then science is truth = scientific deism.


In God's writings, if there are apparent contradictions with science, then man's interpretation is wrong because God will not contradict his own creation.

In order to use any argument that requires the existance of a/the god/gods you must first prove that he/she/it exists. Isn't requiring proof of each statement (and proof that the proof is true) the basis of debate?

[REASON]

Yes, I agree. Your premise that "God created nature" is not scientifically tenable, which immediately unravels your conclusion about scientific deism. Not to mention, to claim that god cannot lie suggests that god has some knowable limitation, which in reality, is something that is also scientifically unknowable.

These are simply your chosen beliefs.

[Sci]

In regards to the discussion of "nothing" in the OP, I can offer this Theory of Nothing, for now:

http://scienceforums...__1#entry306060

Of course then I'll have to read the entire thread eventually.

[dduckwessel]

The Polymath, on 13 April 2011 - 04:16 AM, said:

In order to use any argument that requires the existance of a/the god/gods you must first prove that he/she/it exists. Isn't requiring proof of each statement (and proof that the proof is true) the basis of debate?

On other threads I did a complete about-face from what I posted here as I realized that you're right, this does not appear to be God's creation at all, otherwise it would be perfect.

I might not have made the connection (using the Bible in correlation with scientific data) at all had I not read some things here on Hypography.

Since God is immortal and static, those same rules would apply here if God was the Creator of it!

Therefore, I must deduce, and it's supported in the Bible, that God is not the creator of this world (as I have stated on other posts since).

[dieadderalls]

C1ay, on 13 July 2010 - 05:39 PM, said:

As an Ignostic atheist I would say that you can define God to make a belief in such compatible with anything. Now try defining God in such a way that all of mankind agrees with your definition and then we can discuss whether or not you can deduce the existence of such a God from logic alone.

Sorry to bring this up again but that's just not what it's about man.

There are two basic categories of theology; cataphatic and apophatic. Cataphatic theologians believe you can surmise G-d in terms of what it is, but the educated theologians (William Anselm, Maimonides etc.) think in terms of apophatic theology, that is describing G-d in terms of what it is not, since it is beyond human comprehension. Cataphatic theology is only taught to describe G-d to someone who has never before imagined the concept, where apophatic is the final progression; we aren't supposed to think in finite terms, but infinite terms.

Owait that's what ignosticism is all about. I agree inasmuch as you can't claim G-d exists, but that's not because it needs to be defined, it is because in the most advanced theologies it cannot be defined. It's kind of similar to the mystical experience, it's beyond language and all associated concepts.