Did Laidlaw, Broun, Stoppard, Chesterton...?

Originally posted by wolfgang59
It still makes a sound.
Whether it makes a noise very much depends on your definition of "noise".

But all that is rather irrelevant to my point which you neatly - but obviously - side stepped.

Wasn't avoiding the point; simply answering it with your response.

You contend an unobserved falling tree still causes a sound equivalent to an observed falling tree's sound. But you don't really know this is the case: it's impossible to know if the unobserved phenomena of the world is identical to the observed phenomena.

But the response doesn't lay uncommitted in that marginal area. The deeper answer is how there is no math if there is no mind to behold the same; math needs a host in order to exist.

Before there was a universe, there was nothing and certainly no math with nothing to be attached to. Unless, of course, one considers math as capable of existing outside of existence, of being truly transcendentReveal Hidden Content. Beholden to that perspective, one requires a mind to act as host. I take God to be that host.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
You contend an unobserved falling tree still causes a sound equivalent to an observed falling tree's sound. But you don't really know this is the case: it's impossible to know if the unobserved phenomena of the world is identical to the observed phenomena.

Its impossible to be sure, but a perfectly reasonable assumption nonetheless. In fact it is just as reasonable as the assumption that observed phenomena are what you think they are. Can you really know that the sound you thought you heard came from that falling tree? No, you cannot.

The deeper answer is how there is no math if there is no mind to behold the same; math needs a host in order to exist.
Computers can do math without a mind.
Also, if I figure out an interesting mathematical concept and someone on the other side of the world independently figures out the same concept, what is the connection that makes us get the same result? Is it telepathy? Or is God making sure that our maths is the same?

Originally posted by twhitehead
Its impossible to be sure, but a perfectly reasonable assumption nonetheless. In fact it is just as reasonable as the assumption that observed phenomena are what you think they are. Can you really know that the sound you thought you heard came from that falling tree? No, you cannot.

[b]The deeper answer is how there is no math if there is no mind to be ...[text shortened]... makes us get the same result? Is it telepathy? Or is God making sure that our maths is the same?

Or is God making sure that our maths is the same?
As stated, there is a certain level of transcendence to the language; it is used throughout the universe, consistently and yet in myriad applications.

Without fail, it has been employed since before we knew the formulas, and formulas we still have no inkling of are at play even now. Also without fail, you cannot have math observed without stuff and barring stuff, a mind (host) to think it.

A computer is simply a simulated mind, pre-programmed in the language. It certainly isn't an independent/objective observer!

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
As stated, there is a certain level of transcendence to the language; it is used throughout the universe, consistently and yet in myriad applications.

So you simultaneously claim that minds are required whilst admitting that it permeates reality.

Without fail, it has been employed since before we knew the formulas, and formulas we still have no inkling of are at play even now.
So even math we don't know exists now. This contradicts your claims completely.

Also without fail, you cannot have math observed without stuff and barring stuff, a mind (host) to think it.
Well obviously observation requires an observer by definition, but that's trivial.

A computer is simply a simulated mind, pre-programmed in the language. It certainly isn't an independent/objective observer!
So you agree that math does not require an independent/objective observer.

Originally posted by twhitehead
So you simultaneously claim that minds are required whilst admitting that it permeates reality.

[b]Without fail, it has been employed since before we knew the formulas, and formulas we still have no inkling of are at play even now.
So even math we don't know exists now. This contradicts your claims completely.

Also without fail, you cannot h ...[text shortened]... ective observer!
So you agree that math does not require an independent/objective observer.[/b]

Quit being a jackass and actually read what the other person is saying, won't you?

I specifically said that math has a certain transcendence. If you want to call that a claim, so be it, but it definitely doesn't contradict a single thing I've said up to this point.

So even math we don't know exists now.
Formulas.
Formulas.
Form.
U.
Las we don't know, not math itself.
Quite the victory you eked out there.

So you agree that math does not require an independent/objective observer.
You're kidding, right?
What: you read every other sentence and then blame the writer for being so obtuse?
Read the sentence immediately before the one you keyed in on.
You know: the one you also quoted but apparently didn't bother to read?

This is precisely why conversations on this forum are so ill-advised and fraught with failure: the antagonists so desperately wish to prove their meaningless points, they resort to arguing things that aren't there while ignoring the things that are.

It's like trying to discuss the atomic world with intellects better suited for Teletubies.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Let's use a fictional character, the Easter Bunny.

You cannot consider the EB without thinking of its alleged characteristics: those alleged characteristics must have a source or center from which to exist.

In your example, I was asked to imagine a unicorn. So I imaging the components of the unicorn, commonly held. The two basic parts are horse and ...[text shortened]... : God has relevance if for no other reason, that man has that most basic of questions about Him.

Look, I was being really kind before. Your comment that "you cannot think on the thing that you already consider to not exist" is simply asinine. If that were true, counterfactual reasoning would be impossible. So, take that as a reductio of your silly little position.

Beyond that, there is nothing that special about your 'God' conception. Most of the stuff you think about in any concrete fashion is pure anthropomorphism run amok. The rest is just some nebulous vaguery that you just chalk up to the mystery of the divine.

At any rate, what would any of this have to do with showing that either (1) atheists stand in willful rejection of God or (2) atheism is somehow self-contradictory? As I have already shown, (1) is notionally confused. And (2) is just a bizarre claim that you keep failing to substantiate or retract.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
This is precisely why conversations on this forum are so ill-advised and fraught with failure: the antagonists so desperately wish to prove their meaningless points, they resort to arguing things that aren't there while ignoring the things that are.

I feel exactly the same way. You seem to make a claim then refute yourself in the very next post.

Originally posted by LemonJello
Look, I was being really kind before. Your comment that "you cannot think on the thing that you already consider to not exist" is simply asinine. If that were true, counterfactual reasoning would be impossible. So, take that as a reductio of your silly little position.

Beyond that, there is nothing that special about your 'God' conception. Most of ...[text shortened]... lly confused. And (2) is just a bizarre claim that you keep failing to substantiate or retract.

Look, I was being really kind before.
I don't think your understanding of the word 'kind' and how most people use it are anywhere near one another. Just saying.

So, take that as a reductio of your silly little position.
I do.
Oh, I do.
Do I?
This is precisely why I have continually contended that the atheist's position is a contradiction: you must assume the thing existsReveal Hidden Content in order for you to be able to come to a conclusion about its existence.
If this thing were true what would it look like?
The poor atheist has committed himself unable to undertake such thinking, since he doesn't reject God... he simply doesn't believe He exists.
And he can't consider His existence, because he is already committed to non-existence.
Counterfactual propositions begin with the understanding that it is impossible, that whatever follows is simply a 'what-if' experiment.
The atheist has essentially said:
The thing I rejected before I even considered does not, cannot exist.
However, his name says something else entirely.
It says, regarding GodReveal Hidden Content I conclude He does not exist.
So this thing he didn't openly consider, which he concludes does not exist, he now names himself in accord with?
He is seriously messed up.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]Look, I was being really kind before.
I don't think your understanding of the word 'kind' and how most people use it are anywhere near one another. Just saying.

So, take that as a reductio of your silly little position.
I do.
Oh, I do.
Do I?
This is precisely why I have continually contended that the atheist's position is a contradic ...[text shortened]... oncludes does not exist, he now names himself in accord with?
He is seriously messed up.[/b]

This is precisely why I have continually contended that the atheist's position is a contradiction: you must assume the thing exists...in order for you to be able to come to a conclusion about its existence.

This contention of yours is just wrong. I mean, you're not even in the ballpark here. The rest really should go without saying, but.... First off, assuming X exists before coming to a conclusion about whether or not X exists would literally just be question-begging. So, if that's how you roll, you may want to reconsider that approach. Second, it is simply false that you have to assume something exists before you can consider it. Again, one can easily think about things he takes to be nonexistent...happens quite reqularly.

Counterfactual propositions begin with the understanding that it is impossible,

No, they do not. They begin with the understanding that it is counter to the facts. That doesn't imply that it is impossible. So, you're just confused. At any rate, if there were understanding that X is impossible, then there should also be understanding that X does not exist (since impossible stuff do not exist). So, hilariously, even if you were right, you would be defeating your own point, since this would show that there is understanding of non-existence before thinking about it! Man, you're so confused it's hard to watch!!!

EDIT: Also, atheists, generally, do not claim that God cannot exist. Generally, not even strong atheists are committed to that. Are you sure you even know what 'atheism' is in the first place?

Originally posted by LemonJello

This is precisely why I have continually contended that the atheist's position is a contradiction: you must assume the thing exists...in order for you to be able to come to a conclusion about its existence.

This contention of yours is just wrong. I mean, you're not even in the ballpark here. The rest really should go without saying, bu ...[text shortened]... theists are committed to that. Are you sure you even know what 'atheism' is in the first place?

The rest really should go without saying, but.... First off, assuming X exists before coming to a conclusion about whether or not X exists would literally just be question-begging.
Wrong.
There's no question-begging in assuming something is true.
How do you think the court systems in America work?
They assume the innocence of the accused, and then allow themselves to be convinced otherwise, or remain unmoved.

No, they do not. They begin with the understanding that it is counter to the facts. That doesn't imply that it is impossible.
Gee, how could I have missed something so obvious.
X didn't happen, but I'm going to consider things as though x did happen.
Nope.
Nothing impossible in that situation, is there?
(is there an emoticon for sarcasm?)

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]The rest really should go without saying, but.... First off, assuming X exists before coming to a conclusion about whether or not X exists would literally just be question-begging.
Wrong.
There's no question-begging in assuming something is true.
How do you think the court systems in America work?
They assume the innocence of the accused, and t ...[text shortened]...
Nope.
Nothing impossible in that situation, is there?
(is there an emoticon for sarcasm?)[/b]

There's no question-begging in assuming something is true.
How do you think the court systems in America work?
They assume the innocence of the accused, and then allow themselves to be convinced otherwise, or remain unmoved.

If that is what you meant, then I misunderstood before. That is not question-begging, that is just using hypothetical posit for further investigation. Ever heard of scientific method? That's what they do in science: make hypothetical posits and then do further testing and investigation to understand if the hypothesis is disconfirmed or retained. So, are you going to tell me that this is "contradictory" too? Are you sure you know what a 'contradiction' is?

Gee, how could I have missed something so obvious.
X didn't happen, but I'm going to consider things as though x did happen.
Nope.
Nothing impossible in that situation, is there?

Sorry, don't know what you mean. Are you going to retract your ridiculous claim that counterfactual reasoning starts with the assumption of impossibility?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH

So, take that as a reductio of your silly little position.
I do.
Oh, I do.
Do I?
This is precisely why I have continually contended that the atheist's position is a contradiction: you must assume the thing exists[hidden]or could[/hidden] in order for you to be able to come to a conclusion about its existence.

Just take your argument and apply it to something else other than
god and then maybe you will see how utterly ridiculous you are being.

Originally posted by LemonJello

There's no question-begging in assuming something is true.
How do you think the court systems in America work?
They assume the innocence of the accused, and then allow themselves to be convinced otherwise, or remain unmoved.

If that is what you meant, then I misunderstood before. That is not question-begging, that is just using hypoth ...[text shortened]... your ridiculous claim that counterfactual reasoning starts with the assumption of impossibility?

Sorry, don't know what you mean. Are you going to retract your ridiculous claim that counterfactual reasoning starts with the assumption of impossibility?
Nope.
Counter factual.
Counter to the facts, facts being the things that are.
Thinking on things that are not.
One cannot consider the facts that aren't without knowing the facts that are.
There is an assumption that the thing which I am going to think upon is part of the group of 'are not,' since it runs counter to the things that are part of the group of 'are.'

Originally posted by wolfgang59
Just take your argument and apply it to something else other than
god and then maybe you will see how utterly ridiculous you are being.

I don't think you're truly grasping the nuance of what is being discussed here.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]Sorry, don't know what you mean. Are you going to retract your ridiculous claim that counterfactual reasoning starts with the assumption of impossibility?
Nope.
Counter factual.
Counter to the facts, facts being the things that are.
Thinking on things that are not.
One cannot consider the facts that aren't without knowing the facts that ar ...[text shortened]... up of 'are not,' since it runs counter to the things that are part of the group of 'are.'[/b]

WTF?

How would any of that support that idea that counterfactual reasoning starts with the assumption of impossibility? Do you not understand that not actual (or counter to the facts) is not the same as impossible? Using possible world semantics, not actual simply means not instantiated in the actual world. Impossible means not instantiated in any and all possible worlds (of which the actual world is one of these). Do you not understand how these are different?

Man, you really need to step back and figure out exactly what you're arguing. Your position is FUBAR, I have to tell you.