Friday, March 17, 2017

Reasoning like Children


on /sec outpost
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/secularoutpost/2017/03/13/soulless/#disqus_thread

comments

This begins with a long chain of posts basically  talking about free will and how the choice between haven and hell is not free will because it's a choice between a real good thing and bad thing so you have to choose the good one or you suffer. To them that is coercion and thus not free will. Interspersed in that is a running battle over weather or not God is necessary. They don't understand that issue, I'm trying to get on with argument from final cause they don't want to hear it, and they don't understand it. They don't know the basics.

btw the other guy is named Joe,He is Joe and I'm Joe Hinman, thename foirist is wrioting to the one named second,

Avatar
Joe Hinman => Joe • 2 days ago
that is irrational,first of all you are misusing the term necessary. Secondly God is necessary in the sense you are using too, because there there is no mechanism for something from nothing.
 • Edit• Reply•Share ›


Joe => Joe Hinman • 2 days ago
first of all you are misusing the term necessary
As are you. You are positing it as something that has the power of reification, rather than a philosophical tool.

because there there is no mechanism for something from nothing.
Agreed. So how did God do it?


Joe Hinman=>  Joe • a day ago
As are you. You are positing it as something that has the power of reification, rather than a philosophical tool.

No that's wromg. (1) Malcom,Hartshorne and Plantinga all disprove that, (2) It has nothing to do with reification. Following the logical consequences of the concept is not reification its logic.

(me again)
Joe Hinman  Joe • 2 days ago
I don't think it;s a matter of sclae. it thinks a matter different planes of being. the laws of physics vs a chair,m very different things,
 • Edit• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Joe  Joe Hinman • 2 days ago
Creating a chair out of nothing is pretty impressive.

It's matter of scale, but nothing supernatural is involved.

Joe Hinman  Joe • 2 days ago
that doesn't follow. you have no mechanism for something from nothing and no way way to account for being without eternal necessary being,which is God.

Joe  Joe Hinman • 2 days ago
Something from nothing? Where was the chair before?

Who says I have to account for an eternal necessary being?

Joe Hinman  Joe • 2 days ago
logic doesl I didn;'t say a being but being, that is being itself,

(1) can;t have somethig from noting

(2) therefore something must have always existed (or been),eternally.

(3) whatever that was it equals eternal necessary being, not a being per se but being itself.


Joe  Joe Hinman • 2 days ago
1) Agreed.

2) Agreed

3) Agreed.

None of that means that God is necessary, just that something was.


Joe Hinman  Joe • a day ago
yes if course it does, But more immortality God is eternaland thus uncased thus not contingent,That is the primary use of the term in God argument not a priori as in the opposite of synthetic statements.

Hartshorone argues that necessity in 'god argument has two dimensions, that which can not cease or fail to exist and that which is is not dependent upon some prior cause, He shows the two run together and actually embody each other.

Palantinga argues that necessity is not ordinary logical necessity but what he calls broadly logical necessity which is different,


Joe Hinman  Joe • 2 days ago
in the material that makes it, The simple fact you make the chair from material, you ca't assert eternal material there;s no mechanism, science posits energy created in the big bang, It can be created because it's a quantum state so Newtonian law doesn't hold,


Joe  Joe Hinman • 2 days ago
No. 'Science' posits nothing of the sort. Stop lying to me.


Joe Hinman  Joe • a day ago
Hey Other Joe, Up to this point I considered you one of the thinkers. But I tell you something you have not heard and don't know about you go ape over it. that means you are not a thinker you are mocker, get your head out of the atheist echo chamber and think for yourself and learn.You are an intelligent person you should not be reacting like a message board troll.

Sten Odenwalkd NASSA Physicist documented that very point, he said exactly what I said, science does say that.

no one thinks energy is eternal, if they do it points to god.

QuentonSmith admits universe cannot be infinite,m uses readiation studies to prove it,
http://religiousapriori.blo...

Joe  Joe Hinman • 13 hours ago
Is Quentin Smith a philosopher, or a scientist?

You're arguing against a straw man position. Your post doesn't even back up the point you're trying to make.

Joe Hinman  Joe • 4 minutes ago
of course it does. could it be that you don't understand my point? yes pretty obvious. Clearly it backs it up because it says universe is not eternal and that's my point, Where I differ with smith he argue sit be uncased and I say thesis nonsense,

Atheist trick of denying evidence from non science sources is irrational and does not fly. Philosophers know stuff, Besides he's quoting scientific sources.

Joe  Joe Hinman • 2 days ago
So, when the apologist says that "everything that begins to exist has a cause", they're really only talking about one thing? Their sample set is one?

Joe Hinman  Joe • 2 days ago
right; God = final casue

Joe  Joe Hinman • 2 days ago
Who said anything about the final cause?

Joe Hinman  Joe • 2 days ago
philosophy does. that's the term

Joe  Joe Hinman • 2 days ago
But the Kalam argument doesn't argue for causal chains ,which I would agree with, it argues for multiple instances of 'creation' to support it's premise that "Everything that begins to exist has a cause".

Joe Hinman  Joe • a day ago
Yes it does, use some logic man, whatever would it be? it;s talking abut cause,all cause and effects a chain of causes.

Beside i did not argue Kalam, do you think it;s a doctrine? It;s not mandatory you know,

Joe  Joe Hinman • 13 hours ago
it;s talking abut cause,all cause and effects a chain of causes.
Nowhere in the argument does it say 'chain of causes'. If it did, it would invalidate itself immediately.

Joe Hinman  Joe • 2 minutes ago
It doesn't have to say it, do you not understand how cause and effect works? effects become causes in turn it;is a chain It's self evident.



they are not even trying to think about my arguments, they refuse to consider any other categories of thought but the one;s that support their ideology,. This really marks new atheism as anit- reason because thinking is irrelevant to them, They will not  even consider what a non scientist says, there is no thinking beyond the ideology. ,that is the received truth for them. It is a religion!


No comments: