Your counter-arguments were terribly naive. It got to the point where I had to ask Tom to put you straight on a couple of points... and he even obliged! - So you must have been all over the place.Originally posted by Mentat
No, you may have started out/intended to prove your premise,
but that is not what you ended up doing (in any of your threads). You always seemed to end up just explaining the consecuences of such a reality. I presented the Hurdles thread in order to counter the very premise. Until there is proof that this premise is even valid beyond my counter-arguments, I don't see any reason to pursue it.
You're too sure of yourself, which is a bad thing when you make so many bad mistakes of reasoning and you're still so young. It indicates that you're not too keen in pursuing any idea unless it matches your preconceived idea of reality.
Like 90% of the people in here, you'll evade and ignore and berate any ideas about God; but you will never berate your own belief in materialism.
Your mind has already set, like theirs. You shall evade, ignore and berate me. But you will not talk with me sincerely.
Do you want to be a good philosopher? Or do you want to be a good servant of materialism? You cannot be both. Philosophy built upon intuition is not philosophy.
Do you ever read what I write? I asked the reader to accept my premise so that he may better his understanding of my philosophy.Yes I know that you are asking us to accept that premise (finally, s/he admits it!),
My usual style is to build my conclusion (about God) from our knowledge of the Universe. However; in this specific thread, I thought I'd show you why the conclusion (about God) can actually be shown to build to an explanation of why the universe works the way it does, in relation to this premise.
I have shown how the Laws of physics would be expected to be like they are (Relativity, and QM), since those laws are compatible with my hypothesis. When was the last time you heard someone present a logical argument to show how the Laws of physics are compatible with an external realty?
... It becomes farcical. Intelligent science-types start resorting to wording such as "Logic might be different in an external reality.", thus avoiding my reason to show that external 4-d reality makes no sense. Remember that Tom?
And yet, it is OUR reason which has deciphered the reality we can see, scientifically. Hence if 'our' reason is good enough to scientifically identify what it is seeing, then 'our' reason is certainly good enough to talk about the reality of these 'Laws'.
Most of you guys aren't being honest with yourselves. Least of all myself. And it stands-out like a sore-thumb. I might as well be talking amongst a congregation of Christians. But I plod-on. I've noticed one-or-two with an open mind.
And before you accuse me of the same thing, then remember this: "My usual style is to build my conclusion (about God) from our knowledge of the Universe.".
Not one person in this forum will tell you otherwise, unless they lie.
My philosophy is built upon knowledge. Materialism is built upon an assumption... an intuitive guess.