Secular guy
"I have posed this to many philosophers including Christian ones. They all give good solutions, but none of which would satisfy this crowd. So, I'm interested in how some here would try to respond.
Suppose there are two universes identical in every way except one has a God and the other doesn't. Each has order, life, maths, logic, morality, meaning, experiences considered religious, god-talk, and even cute and fluffy bunnies. Suppose you're placed into one of these universes. How would you determine which one you were in?
Some would say that all universes require God and others would claim that no universe requires any gods. But these are all bald assertions that beg the question this hypothetical asks. That is, given each universe is phenomenally and experiencially the same, to what would one appeal to claim to know? What would even count as evidence without merely supposing how a god would relate to any universe?
I won't bother relaying what the professionals say; I'm interested in whether or not folks in this group can actually employ logic and then be honest with the implications of this hypothetical"
Matt singleton
I am in the universe which has God.
1. The universe is all material things.
2. the "uni" demands that you can not separate all material things.
3. Either one universe is real or the two are really the same universe.
4. A material universe without God would have no immaterial properties.
5. morality for instance is an immaterial property.
6. So a universe without God and therefore immaterial properties and with immaterial properties is not real. Because of the law of non-contradiction.
7. While a universe with God is consistent.
8. Thus the real niverse is the universe with God.
9. I am real and operate with a material body and an immaterial mind.
I am in the universe which has God.
Secular guy: none of these is logically tied together. you fiat each relationship. you don't even as much conceed "if this premise is true, this would follow" ... you just demand what you want to be true.
since yours isn't logically valid, no conclusion is guaranteed.
since yours has premises which aren't necessarily true, and since they're simply fiats, bald assertions, the conclusion would be a lucky guess.
Matt SIngleton it is tied together from the definition.
If you want to throw out the law of non contradiction then you have no concept of logic.
you are simply making a strawman. You are impotent in your assertion that I am making what I want to be true. Ridiculously without base.
If you don't know what "universe" means then you have no business discussing the universe.
like a strung out crack fiend you want to make accusations like "bald assertions" even while making "bald assertions"
Thus trying to disguise the guilt of your own naïve inabilities.
If you can't mentally explain a different point of view then expect ridicule.
🤣
If you want to throw out the law of non contradiction then you have no concept of logic.
you are simply making a strawman. You are impotent in your assertion that I am making what I want to be true. Ridiculously without base.
If you don't know what "universe" means then you have no business discussing the universe.
like a strung out crack fiend you want to make accusations like "bald assertions" even while making "bald assertions"
Thus trying to disguise the guilt of your own naïve inabilities.
If you can't mentally explain a different point of view then expect ridicule.
🤣
Secular guy Matt SIngleton ... study philosophy. the LNC is a strategy, as is dialetheism; it's not a fact of reality.
Secular guy: none of your points had any logical ties, that's the point.
Secular guy: not even some presumed definition ties these together.
Matt SIngleton your not demonstrating any logic at all. I could not even prove that you read my post.
you have no point.
you have no point.
Secular guy i do have a point. that is, you aren't connecting your premises. for instance, "uni" somehow demands material things can't be separated? a definition actually dictates how things are? ... which, you're not even clear on what you mean by "separated". obviously the car is separated from its driver, the ocean from the land, your premises from your conclusions. so, fix these problems, then start trying to make an actual thesis.
Matt SIngleton the universe is not a car, the universe is not the driver. the universe is all things. it is all connected if it is all things.
We can argue on what all things ends up being.
But what it is, is all things.Your trying to separate the gulf of mexico from the atlantic ocean when pointing a fellow in new Orleans to the sea.
Separated is your premise. You want to discuss two universes.
Why would I need to explain to you your own premise?
I opened pretty blatantly with a thesis.
"I am in the universe which has God."
to your topic of universes and your dilemma of knowing which universe you were in.
Every point is in logical order the only point you would have a right to critique is point 7. but you would have to be able to demonstrate this. I don't see any demonstration going. With the only exception being your last comment after I demanded it.
But when you claim these points do not connect then you need to demonstrate it. Because I am not gullible When you fail to convince me, you fail to convince me.
We can argue on what all things ends up being.
But what it is, is all things.Your trying to separate the gulf of mexico from the atlantic ocean when pointing a fellow in new Orleans to the sea.
Separated is your premise. You want to discuss two universes.
Why would I need to explain to you your own premise?
I opened pretty blatantly with a thesis.
"I am in the universe which has God."
to your topic of universes and your dilemma of knowing which universe you were in.
Every point is in logical order the only point you would have a right to critique is point 7. but you would have to be able to demonstrate this. I don't see any demonstration going. With the only exception being your last comment after I demanded it.
But when you claim these points do not connect then you need to demonstrate it. Because I am not gullible When you fail to convince me, you fail to convince me.
Secular guy sir, i can let your/you're go a few times, but at least TRY to get it right by now!
my point is that none of your terms are clear, and that fact alone leaves your premises disconnected ... much less that even if you clean them up, there's no necessary reason to accept any of them because your say-so is the only reason given so far.
in the hypothetical there are two universes, just in the same way two cars are possible. committing a definition fallacy doesn't a counter argument make.
my point is that none of your terms are clear, and that fact alone leaves your premises disconnected ... much less that even if you clean them up, there's no necessary reason to accept any of them because your say-so is the only reason given so far.
in the hypothetical there are two universes, just in the same way two cars are possible. committing a definition fallacy doesn't a counter argument make.
Matt SIngletonYou see here is the game.
You assume you have an entitlement to knock those you disagree with, without being responsible to provide something true or at a minimum reasonable.
You lack something called authority.
The longer you fail to provide explanations The more doubtful that you are capable of providing them.
"sir, i can let your/you're go a few times"
While you were attempting a grammar Nazi tactic, you forgot to capitalize you I. 😆
"my point is that none of your terms are clear, and that fact alone leaves your premises disconnected ."
At this point you are claiming that I have not properly defined the topic.
Thus, you are attacking my position over definitions.
However, you set the topic and have the burden of defining the universe.
In the meantime I did define the universe.in your absence.
"The universe is all material things."
You responded 5 times without defining the universe!
So now you want to anchor your argument that I have a false definition of the universe. we could go to the dictionary
U'NIVERSE, noun [Latin universitas.]
The collective name of heaven and earth, and all that belongs to them; the whole system of created things.
http://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/universe
"all that belongs to them" "whole system of created things"
Still sides with me.
"just in the same way two cars are possible. committing a definition fallacy doesn't a counter argument make."
two cars are not all things or the whole system of created things.
But wait...….
"my point is that none of your terms are clear, and that fact alone leaves your premises disconnected ."
it appears that you are making a definitional fallacy.
🤣
You assume you have an entitlement to knock those you disagree with, without being responsible to provide something true or at a minimum reasonable.
You lack something called authority.
The longer you fail to provide explanations The more doubtful that you are capable of providing them.
"sir, i can let your/you're go a few times"
While you were attempting a grammar Nazi tactic, you forgot to capitalize you I. 😆
"my point is that none of your terms are clear, and that fact alone leaves your premises disconnected ."
At this point you are claiming that I have not properly defined the topic.
Thus, you are attacking my position over definitions.
However, you set the topic and have the burden of defining the universe.
In the meantime I did define the universe.in your absence.
"The universe is all material things."
You responded 5 times without defining the universe!
So now you want to anchor your argument that I have a false definition of the universe. we could go to the dictionary
U'NIVERSE, noun [Latin universitas.]
The collective name of heaven and earth, and all that belongs to them; the whole system of created things.
http://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/universe
"all that belongs to them" "whole system of created things"
Still sides with me.
"just in the same way two cars are possible. committing a definition fallacy doesn't a counter argument make."
two cars are not all things or the whole system of created things.
But wait...….
"my point is that none of your terms are clear, and that fact alone leaves your premises disconnected ."
it appears that you are making a definitional fallacy.
🤣
No comments:
Post a Comment