|
|
 Up |
|
|
  |
Author: chazwinchazwin Date: Dec 29, 2006 16:00
Irrefutable proof that there is a god.
"I have stated repeatedly that the mutability of the material world
means there must be a distinct source of the existence of the material
world."
"God exists because the universe is mutable."
And to think that the entire world of Theology fought tooth and nail
against Darwin because the theory of evolution rejected the immutable
universe.
This is just one of many examples where theists insist god exists on
two self contradictory statements.
|
| |
|
| | 39 Comments |
|
|
Author: ImmortalistImmortalist Date: Dec 29, 2006 16:58
chazwin wrote:
> Irrefutable proof that there is a god.
>
> "I have stated repeatedly that the mutability of the material world
> means there must be a distinct source of the existence of the material
> world."
> "God exists because the universe is mutable."
>
> And to think that the entire world of Theology fought tooth and nail
> against Darwin because the theory of evolution rejected the immutable
> universe.
>
> This is just one of many examples where theists insist god exists on
> two self contradictory statements.
The mutability of the material world means there must be a distinct
source of the existence of the material world.
The world is probably mutable since since perception of change is
persistent.
Persistence requires sequence and causation.
|
| Show full article (1.32Kb) |
|
| | 23 Comments |
|
|
Author: mikegordgemikegordge Date: Dec 29, 2006 17:21
chazwin wrote:
> Irrefutable proof that there is a god.
They (the mystics) get their ideas about their god, from the exact same
faith based idiot philosophical trash as you stupid fucking Kantians
get yours from, you idiot.
Not even your good friend, the self-proclaimed protege of Kant, RT, has
been able to give an example of ANY idea - concept - and or theory of
man's knowledge of reality, which can not be directly linked and or
reduced right back down to an irreducible and sensory level of
perception.
According to RT, you have to know before you can know before you can
know before you can know and that knowing before you can know goes back
for many many many generations, more like about 2006 years of fucking
generations.
e.g. according to Kant (accordng to RT) Rutherford did not or could not
possibly know that he was trying to split an atom, because it hadn't
been previously known that it could be done.
|
| Show full article (1.14Kb) |
| 1 Comment |
|
|
Author: chazwinchazwin Date: Dec 30, 2006 03:54
Immortalist wrote:
> chazwin wrote:
>> Irrefutable proof that there is a god.
>>
>> "I have stated repeatedly that the mutability of the material world
>> means there must be a distinct source of the existence of the material
>> world."
>> "God exists because the universe is mutable."
>>
>> And to think that the entire world of Theology fought tooth and nail
>> against Darwin because the theory of evolution rejected the immutable
>> universe.
>>
>> This is just one of many examples where theists insist god exists on
>> two self contradictory statements.
>
> The mutability of the material world means there must be a distinct
> source of the existence of the material world.
|
| Show full article (1.92Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: chazwinchazwin Date: Dec 30, 2006 03:58
Citizen Bob wrote:
> On 29 Dec 2006 16:58:57 -0800, "Immortalist"
> yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>The mutability of the material world means there must be a distinct
>>source of the existence of the material world.
>
>>The world is probably mutable since since perception of change is
>>persistent.
>
>>Persistence requires sequence and causation.
>
>>The God theory may be true as an explaination of the cause because the
>>universe is mutable.
>
>>Therefore the mutability, succession, and change do not require any
>>particualr cause and hence the God theory and the Evolution theory are
>>both saved as viable in some respect.
>
|
| Show full article (2.42Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: chazwinchazwin Date: Dec 30, 2006 04:00
Citizen Bob wrote:
> On 29 Dec 2006 17:21:44 -0800, mikegordge@ xtra.co.nz wrote:
>
> >>chazwin wrote:
>>> Irrefutable proof that there is a god.
>
>>They (the mystics) get their ideas about their god, from the exact same
>>faith based idiot philosophical trash as you stupid fucking Kantians
>>get yours from, you idiot.
>
>>Not even your good friend, the self-proclaimed protege of Kant, RT, has
>>been able to give an example of ANY idea - concept - and or theory of
>>man's knowledge of reality, which can not be directly linked and or
>>reduced right back down to an irreducible and sensory level of
>>perception.
>
>>According to RT, you have to know before you can know before you can
>>know before you can know and that knowing before you can know goes back
>>for many many many generations, more like about 2006 years of fucking ...
|
| Show full article (1.58Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: SphereSphere Date: Dec 30, 2006 21:22
Citizen Bob wrote:
> On 29 Dec 2006 16:58:57 -0800, "Immortalist"
> yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>The mutability of the material world means there must be a distinct
>>source of the existence of the material world.
>
>>The world is probably mutable since since perception of change is
>>persistent.
>
>>Persistence requires sequence and causation.
>
>>The God theory may be true as an explaination of the cause because the
>>universe is mutable.
>
>>Therefore the mutability, succession, and change do not require any
>>particualr cause and hence the God theory and the Evolution theory are
>>both saved as viable in some respect.
>
|
| Show full article (1.83Kb) |
| 19 Comments |
|
|
Author: PubliusPublius Date: Dec 30, 2006 23:05
>> I claim that adopting the Worldview of Existential Realism is
>> justified by the validity of orthodox Physics, which is capable of
>> producing accurate predictions about the material world.
> One problem, they cannot produce 100%% accurate
> predictions.
The bigger problem is that there is no logical path from "Existential
Realism" to the predictions of physics. Hence the latter have nothing to say
about the validity of the former.
|
| |
| 18 Comments |
|
|
Author: PubliusPublius Date: Jan 1, 2007 11:47
> Hey Publius,
> maybe you know what Bob is on about? I have asked
> him time and again: "What are the axioms of Existential Realism". He
> claims that if accepted they prove the existence of a supreme being. I
> think he must have "killfiled" me, probably becasue he does not know
> what they are, or he will have to admit that he has made up this new
> "philosophy" of ER. The only reference to it I can find is an artistic
> movement related to fantasy art.
> SO do you know what these powerful axioms of ER consist of??
I responded to that just above in this thread. Check.
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
|
Author: PubliusPublius Date: Jan 1, 2007 23:18
>>The "objectivity of being" is a
>>philosophical issue, not a scientific one.
> I fundamentally disagree. Physics would be impossible if there weren't
> a realist objective ontological world.
Can you explain why?
> BTW, the Idealist world does not require Consistency or Causality. You
> are trying to mix apples and oranges.
It obviously requires consistency. Any theory, to be coherent, must be
consistent. And any theory of events occurring over time will posit
causality. Theories are ideal patterns or structures, and causality is merely
an ideal structure with a temporal dimension.
|
| |
| 1 Comment |
|
RELATED THREADS |
|
|
|
|
|
|
