Nothing could be more damning of atheism than it's rejection of logic and argument. they are so tired of losing God arguments they actually are starting to reject the concept of arguing. They already shut down logic as a from of knowledge (science being the only for of knowledge in their minds--scinece requires logic to work).
Originally Posted by Metacrock
Bigthinker
They are arguments so they don't really matter; you can make up an argument about whatever you want -that doesn't mean something exists.
Arguments are philosophical, not scientific.
Science deals with evidence and reality, arguments deal with ideas.
You use arguments because you lack the evidence but you believe anyways.
Meta
we have played this game so many times, why long are going to keep putting off God to play your little games?Bigthinker
As long as you keep putting off presenting evidence of God (and stop wasting your time with mere arguments).
He disassociates arguemnt from evidence. any argument for God he automatically claims is not evidence becuase it's an argument if you have to answer it it's not proof. He wants DNA samples and fingerprints.you can't separate argument form proof.arguments are means of demonstrating proofs. If you present the kind of evdience you want, absolute becasue a doubt such as DNA samples one could still argue about it. It's still to distinguish that way that arguments are false.
Steve Chase starts a thread:Argumentum ad Blusterdom
That's a nerd speak phrase meaning "I don't understand your big words." that's a means of turning off arguement. It's used when the other starts making an argument and says stuff you don't understand. This is all extremely anti-intellectual and really shows the intellectual bankruptcy of the atheist movement.
Here's this weirdness by Royce. I talked about my own idea which I call "Theistic Proto Pan Psychism" that is the idea that reality is a thought in the mind of God. So Royce quicly tries to defalte that by showing it's nothing more than just Panpsychism which is not really about God. He tries to calim that Chalmer's defends what he calls "pan proto psychism." I told him my phrase was proto pan pschism. but he continues to say Chalmers talks about it but he will not use my phrase. he has t say pan proto becuase his way but he just refuses to say my order of the wrods, which allows me to claim that he's not talking about the same thing.
Originally Posted by Royce
No I did not. you don't know what It is I'm talking bout. You have not read the Kore book so you don't know what Newton said bout action at a distance. you are just hopping that something you know of fits but it doesn't. My view is only monistic by default and in a significant sense. Just becuase it is monistic in a way does not mean it excludes creator/cretor distinction, or Trinitiaian thinking.
Originally Posted by Royce
No he dose not because I made it up. It's based upon Berkeley, Gaswami, Newton, More, Libentiz, Melabranch, Bently and others.
get it through your head. Chalmer's does not talk about my idea. look at you said , where did you put the Proto!? I put it in red to show you.
you have the proto in the middle. the idea I'm talking about has the proto at the first. it's a different idea.
I bet Chalmer's doesn't use the "proto" at all.
Originally Posted by Royce
I knew if I put up a term that similar to one you knew you would pretend to know all about it. Now you are not even acknowledged the difference in the terms, even though you write it your way ever time. It would kill to write it my way. you are pretending there's no difference.clearly not the same concept. just grow up.you are so predictable. Show me the page number where Chalmers says it?Royce
I already did months ago: http://forums.carm.org/vbb/showthrea...28#post4358728.showing I dont' read posts? He can't even see the difference bewteen proto pan and pan proto. I thought I was the dyslexic. I did get the last word, which I guess on the troll scale means I won.
Congratulations on once again showing you don't read posts and don't read what you're linked to. You'll probably move the goalposts again, as usual
This is funny,
Originally Posted by Metacrock
First, you did claim Chalmers did not discuss panprotopsychism.
Since he does discuss it, you were wrong on that.
Royce
Second, Chalmers discussed protophenomenal properties and panprotopsychism. So the "proto" is not original to you.After all that he can't see it? surely he knows by this time the distinction between proto pan and pan proto he's just refusing to do ti my way. which is hilarious. I can still say "not talking about the same thing" he's not for a very simiple reason. the phrase I sued began with THEISTIC! that's why it'sTPPP. He never noticed or acknowledged. it. Chamler's did nto defned Theistic anything.
Royce
Denying what I've shown to be the case is quite sad.what's even more ironic is that he didn't show anything. He never did quote Chalmers or give a page number.
You can declare victory, as usual, while still not correcting your mistakes. At this point, no one familiar with your posting history would be surprised by your doing that.
No comments:
Post a Comment