Experience is a logical reference, nothing wrong with that, its a lot better then basing your ideas on something someone wrote and put ina book. However the idea of something from nothing is a bit illogical and certainly has no support of any experience any human has known so you’re kind of contradicting yourself there in my opinion.
I personally believe in Absolutes and believe that everyone deep down does too if their capable of thinking hard enough and being honest.
Can we add the laugh track to this Uccisore? Surely you don’t stand behind this kind of douchebaggery.
There might have always been something in the universe for all I know. Remember, creationists have the same issues if not more… Their “god” made the everything out of nothing and their god must have come from something or have always existed…
I would venture to say that absolutes are not truths but simply a way for our minds to cope with reality: 1. The human mind has a tendency towards generalization. 2. The mind is indoctrinated from its birth and can only exist within certain boundaries.
Then you must define what you call a Truth? Because I can show you some absolute truths that cannot be denied by anyone with a rational functional mind.
Gravity comes to mind, it can’t be disobeyed without immediate consequences and it is Absolute and the effect is true by any measure I know of. If you want more I can list as many as you like. Everything had to come from something except the first thing and that first thing must be eternal and outside space time.
Do you know that gravity is and will always be true? I don’t know that the next time I drop my pen that it will fall to the ground. I just remember (perhaps falsely) that every time I have dropped it to date it has fallen. Who knows? We don’t yet understand the cause of gravity. Gravity is just a theory. Maybe, for some unknown reason, the pen won’t be attracted by the “gravity waves” of the earth…
Everything did not have to come from something. Your first “thing/god” did not come from something (he always existed~!)… For years, before the big bang theory was supported by the existence of Cosmic Background Radiation, physicists thought the universe was static and eternal (Einstein even added an unnecessary constant to his equations of general relativity to support this idea). Even now many support a theory of multiple big bangs that occur ad infinitum. If your “thing” can be eternal, why can’t the universe itself be eternal? From what we have observed, energy cannot be created or destroyed. How do you know there is an “outside” to space and time? It’s just a postulation in order to support your “truths” that are based on causation and presumably an “omnipotent” first cause…
Huh?
I’d hate to say that Mr. Art has declined this debate…although, it seems that way to me.
“The Art of Spiritual War” thread, is my first post, should anyone care to follow the discussion.
What do you mean?
I’m not talking about knowing positively, I’m talking about observing all the evidence and all the evidence says we will always have to obey all the rules of physics and nature until we die, if you have other logical evidence then please state it.
As far as anyone could ever logically prove that’s about as absolute as anything can get.
Note the as absolute as anything can get statement there…
All the data we have on gravity points to its existence. But how can you absolutely 100% know? well you cant.
I bet you cannot prove that we are not living in some sort of matrix. We could be living in a false computer program in which a fictional force of gravity existed. When we are removed from the matrix, we will find ourselves in a world without gravity, but rather operating solely on the force of electromagnetism.
Now there is no way for you to prove that this isn’t true, which is why, at a point, naturalists behave under the assumption that the universe has a gravitational force, because to think otherwise would be mere speculation. Also note that Occam’s razor applies here.
Does this scenario with gravity bear any resemblance to a scenario invoking an all-knowing creator?
I’m skimming, and my name comes up several times, but I still don’t have a handle on what it is people want me to do. 
Mr. Art would like to argue with you, since my response has been deemed unacceptable.
Perhaps you will be an easier target for him, (so he thinks.)
I can’t imagine anyone thinking so after comparing the content of our posts though.
Shot
Uccisore
I expressed it a little unkindly and obliquely (apologies to Shot), but really I want to know how you feel about this kind of rhetoric:
I don’t see your affirmation of God as irrational. I see it as a different kind of rationality, one that I might have chosen if my life had run a bit differently up to this point. Nor do I see my attempts to defend my way of thinking as particularly “courageous”; they are just good-faith attempts towards mutual understanding and respect. Shotgun apparently does not feel the same way about my positions or AoW’s.
But what do you think? Do you see my lack of belief in god as “irrational” (what does that mean?), and your defense of your faith as “courageous”, i.e. in the defense of the truly good against atheism’s threatening evil?
I find it odd that you ask Uccisore for a clarification of my view.
Unless he is well read in reformed epistemology, especially the presuppositionalist (IE Bahnsen, Frame, Pratt, Van Til, etc.) It’s not likely that he would be able to answer your questions concerning my statements.
I do love passive aggressive posts though, since the gospel usually has a way of bringing true emotions to the front of the disucssion.
lol…so… why don’t you say what’s really on your mind Mr/Ms. Aporia?
Hence the term deluded.
I asked Uccisore whether he agrees with the ideas behind your rhetoric. I asked him because I respect his mind and philosophical outlook. I suppose it’s not quite on topic here, so if you want us to move it to another thread, I’ll do that.
I might be interested in having a discussion with you about our respective worldviews. Why don’t I present a basic outline of my worldview, since that is how you presuppositionalists get things started.
I believe that our universe and the life and intelligence within it are ultimately composed of matter. This matter moves according to the nature of the universe, which we understand through scientific inquiry (e.g. physics, big bang theory, evolution, etc). Science has taught us about how the universe works, but we don’t really know why it works the way it does and not some other way. I believe this is acceptable because there may not be a reason, an answer to the “why”. The universe may be the way it is just because.
Man is an animal endowed with an unusual degree of intelligence and social tendencies. We are naturally interested in living together harmoniously, but our instincts towards selfishness and predatory behavior conflict with that goal. To resolve the conflict we have developed systems of morality and law.
Our religious impulses have several interrelated sources. We are naturally adapted to understanding the world in terms of interactions of social agents – even materialist physicists will often slip into social metaphors about mindless matter, suggesting that particles “know” and “do” in relation to other particles. Our adeptness with working in social systems makes it easy for us to conjecture that powerful agents (gods) are responsible for phenomena we do not understand. There are other reasons but I think I’ll stop there for now.
Mr. / Ms. Aporia,
I really appreciate this comment of yours, I was rather surprised. I was expecting some venom filled response. Thanks for the pleasant reply.
That said, you would make all my dreams come true, if you posted the above reply in my “Art of Spiritual War” thread, where I have listed out the basic tenets of my own “worldview.” We could compare, contrast, and critique each others views.
I’d be more than happy to continue the discussion with you there.
Shot
Thanks in turn, and once again I apologize for my first reply. I believe in treating those I disagree with respectfully, although I occasionally let counterproductive emotions get the best of me. I’ve pasted my reply as you requested. I am a Mr. if you must, but I would prefer you just use my handle aporia unadorned.
As far as I’ve ever seen, you’re as rational an atheist as they come. You and I have gone our rounds, and you seem to be as actively examining your own beliefs as anybody has a right to expect; if my beliefs are rational, it seems yours are too, because you meet the standards I’ve set for myself. Courageous? Meh. I suppose it takes a little more courage to defend theism than atheism here, but that’s entirely a function of the nature of the place and not a characteristic of the beliefs themselves.
Now you’re just being contradictive and ridiculous, like I said, as soon as you have any logical evidence then state it. Until then you’re just making up crap as you go and pretending that the reality that we all share is an illusion. I mean, how do I know you even responded to my assertions or even wrote anything down, why don’t I just pretend you agreed with me and I’m am king of the universe you dumb ass. Stick to reality and logic or fu*k off.
Godamn existential bullshit.