thehomer:

No you've not done that at all.

If it were a false dichotomy, it should be easy for you to show but I'm actually trying to let you know that a concept and its negation are true dichotomies. You can take a look at it here.

Another website? Nah men...I aint doing this.

striktlymi:

Another website? Nah men...I aint doing this.

The point is to show you that you're misusing the fallacy you accused me of. I already explained more than once that you were misusing it. I was simply hoping that the short article would be even clearer.

thehomer:

The point is to show you that you're misusing the fallacy you accused me of. I already explained more than once that you were misusing it. I was simply hoping that the short article would be even clearer.

I believe the intent was to waste my time...

If you want to demonstrate that I am misusing the fallacy, you simply state what the fallacy is about, how it is used , how I used it wrongly then you paste your web address as evidence to what you are talking about.

You don't just give someone a web address to go off into some 'wilderness'.

thehomer: 1. God either exists or he doesn't exist.
2. If he does exist, then either he interacts with the universe in a detectable manner or he doesn't.
3. If he does, then we should be able to detect it.
4. If he doesn't, then his existence is indistinguishable from his non-existence.
5. If we cannot tell that he does exist, then we cannot know about any other properties it could have.

While addressing this argument, please tell us the God you have in mind.

You might also have to tell us the God you have in mind.

The God I have in mind is by definition the creator of the universe.

If everything that begins to exist has a cause and the universe began to exist then it must have a cause.

If a thing has interconnected parts and functions according to a specific pattern such that one can predict with accuracy how it ought to behave, it can be said that the thing is designed. If the universe is made up of multiple interconnected parts acting according to certain arbitrary laws such that one can accurately predict how it ought to behave, then the universe is designed.

If the universe both began to exist and works according to a specific pattern instead of utter chaos, then it was not merely caused but intelligently and deliberately created and hence God must exist.

Now on to your argument.

1. God either exists or he doesn't exist.

ok

2. If he does exist, then either he interacts with the universe in a detectable manner or he doesn't.

Such as a detectable begining of the universe (light from the big bang) and a detectable order to the universe that permits man to do science (arbitrary physical laws governing the universe)?

3. If he does, then we should be able to detect it.

We have detected it by looking at nature.

4. If he doesn't, then his existence is indistinguishable from his non-existence.

Apparently he does

5. If we cannot tell that he does exist, then we cannot know about any other properties it could have.

We can know that He is highly intelligent and powerful from looking at the physically ordered universe that He created

striktlymi:

I believe the intent was to waste my time...

If you want to demonstrate that I am misusing the fallacy, you simply state what the fallacy is about, how it is used , how I used it wrongly then you paste your web address as evidence to what you are talking about.

You don't just give someone a web address to go off into some 'wilderness'.

I've already done that several times like:

thehomer:
Being detectable and being not detectable are true dichotomies.

thehomer:
Premise 4. If he is not detectable, then his existence is indistinguishable from his non-existence. For you to show that it is a false dichotomy, there has to be a path between being detectable and being not detectable. And as I said, it is a true dichotomy. Something is either detectable or not detectable. If you think there's a third path, please say what it is because what you've said so far is that the object is not detectable.

thehomer:
If God chooses to make himself detectable, then he is detectable. (Covered in the argument)
If God chooses to make himself not detectable, then he is not detectable. (Also covered in the argument)
Those are the only possible choices. If you have a third choice, please present it. That is what you'll need to show in order to claim that I've committed the logical fallacy.

When these responses failed, then I posted the reference link.

jayriginal: A non detectable god is for all intents and purposes a non existent god.

Succinct.

thehomer:

Exactly.

Very true but just so you lot don't make the magic jump to the conclusion "therefore God does not exist" I'll make a parody argument.

In the land of the blind, a blind man once said:

1. Light either exists or it doesn't exist.
2. If it does exist, then either it interacts with the universe in a detectable manner or it doesn't.
3. If it does, then we should be able to detect it.
4. If it doesn't, then it's existence is indistinguishable from it's non-existence.
5. If we cannot tell that it does exist, then we cannot know about any other properties it could have.

To which a man one man replied: "But it is because of light that our plants grow. Surely we can detect our plants growing"

but the blind men rejected his explanation and unanimously shouted him down. "Light for all intents and purposes does not exist" they said.

Mr anony:
You might also have to tell us the God you have in mind.

The Christian God since you're a Christian.

Mr anony:
The God I have in mind is by definition the creator of the universe.

Well I reject your definition because I see no reason to think the universe was created.

Mr anony:
If everything that begins to exist has a cause and the universe began to exist then it must have a cause.

This of course depends on what you mean by "begins to exist" and "cause".

Mr anony:
If a thing has interconnected parts and functions according to a specific pattern such that one can predict with accuracy how it ought to behave, it can be said that the thing is designed. If the universe is made up of multiple interconnected parts acting according to certain arbitrary laws such that one can accurately predict how it ought to behave, then the universe is designed.

How do you know that the laws are arbitrary? Have you checked against any other universe?

Mr anony:
If the universe both began to exist and works according to a specific pattern instead of utter chaos, then it was not merely caused but intelligently and deliberately created and hence God must exist.

Actually, you've not demonstrated anything since your God could also "by definition" or fiat have created a universe without a specific pattern i.e one in utter chaos. Saying your God does it all really says nothing at all.

Mr anony:
Now on to your argument.

ok

Such as a detectable begining of the universe (light from the big bang) and a detectable order to the universe that permits man to do science (arbitrary physical laws governing the universe)?

It is nice that God had to retreat from earth to the very beginning of the universe but, the "light" from the beginning of the universe would still have been detected even if your God didn't actually create it. Just as water would still be wet even if your God wasn't there to create it.

Mr anony:
We have detected it by looking at nature.

And with this, you show that you don't understand the argument. Saying "everything proves God" is saying nothing about God. Since we sometimes observe tsunamis and sometimes don't, does it mean God both wants tsunamis and doesn't want them?

Mr anony:
Apparently he does

We can know that He is highly intelligent and powerful from looking at the physically ordered universe that He created

Yet the universe also has chaos inbuilt. Is he in support of chaos and at the same time against it?

@ Anony do you believe in a god that interacts in the world, example do you believe in a god answers prayers?. . .

thehomer:

I've already done that several times like:


When these responses failed, then I posted the reference link.

Are you sure you know what the fallacy of false dichotomy is about? If you do then you should realise that all that is needed to show this fallacy in your argument is present just one more option to the ones you already presented.

Being detectable and being not detectable? To whom?...You, me, the whole of mankind?

It can be implied from your argument that you mean the whole of creation or better still mankind.

Note that there is a huge difference between: 'being detectable' and 'being detectable to at least one person'.

Your second premise: 2. If he does exist, then either he interacts with the universe in a detectable manner or he doesn't.

talks about God interacting with the Universe in a detectable manner which can be interpreted that God needs to interact with the whole of creation which includes the whole human race.

That premise does not give room for partial interaction though you have denied this despite it being obvious from your premise.

The options from the premise are (a) God interacts in a detectable manner to everyone or he does not....but there are further options as I have stated before which I now have reasons to believe that you deliberately decide not to see.

God can decide to be detectable to just one person and not the whole of mankind.

He can decide to be detectable to more than one person but not the whole of mankind till the (n-1)th number of people on Earth.

Whether you accept or not the fallacy of false dichotomy is on you.

Mr anony:

You might also have to tell us the God you have in mind.

The God I have in mind is by definition the creator of the universe.

OK. . . .

If everything that begins to exist has a cause and the universe began to exist then it must have a cause.

Or causes. . . .

If a thing has interconnected parts and functions according to a specific pattern such that one can predict with accuracy how it ought to behave, it can be said that the thing is designed. If the universe is made up of multiple interconnected parts acting according to certain arbitrary laws such that one can accurately predict how it ought to behave, then the universe is designed.

What was the universe designed for?. . .How does the universe behave and what was it designed and created for?. . .

If the universe both began to exist and works according to a specific pattern instead of utter chaos, then it was not merely caused but intelligently and deliberately created and hence God must exist.

When we see the universe we see utter chaos. . .Collinding stars, exploding stars that give rise to new stars, collisions that form planets and destroy planets etc. . .What specific patters does the universe follow?. . .Why must there be a god and not many gods?. . .If you insist that the universe must follow the way a human society functions then there must be gods and not a single god. . .The universe is not a human society and must not behave or function as one.. .

thehomer:

It does not assume that man can detect everything detectable in existence,

.

It does, when you say this:

thehomer:
3. If he does, then we should be able to detect it.

It is possible that you might not be able to detect it. That is logically possible.

And many sensible people do not see the existence of brains the CNS and the rest of the natural world as evidence for your God. Notice that when you say this, you're implicitly saying that the effects of your God are detectable and have been detected.

Of course, man has logically and intuitively detected the existence of God from the dawn of time. This is why you have all the concepts of God all over the world. No body, save mad men, see the sort of extensive design of the human brain, and its functions far in excess of that which is warranted by evolution, and concludes that it is the product of un-directed mindless matter. It takes madness, to believe that.

If you're saying this, then what does the presence of unspeakable terrors, horrors and pains in the natural world mean? Are they also evidence of your God?

The argument does not say that God is all good. It does not even say that God is benevolent. It says that God is necessary.

At all events, for anything to exist, something or the other must be self existent. I have already told you severally why matter cannot be the self existent, but you never just get the very simple reason why. Self existent things are not mutable.

And what else can you now conclude about this God?

That it is necessary, self-existent and living.

thehomer:
The Christian God since you're a Christian.

Well I reject your definition because I see no reason to think the universe was created.

What then do you define God as? Since you have rejected the very definition of God which Christians believe in. perhaps you may want to define the God you had in mind.

This of course depends on what you mean by "begins to exist" and "cause".

I'm sure you have access to a dictionary

How do you know that the laws are arbitrary? Have you checked against any other universe?

The fact that there are possible worlds where things such as the speed of light, gravity, the strong and weak nuclear forces can be different from what they are here tells me that the laws of this universe are not necessary laws.

Actually, you've not demonstrated anything since your God could also "by definition" or fiat have created a universe without a specific pattern i.e one in utter chaos. Saying your God does it all really says nothing at all.

Interestingly this proves my point. The fact that the universe works according to a specific pattern tells us that there is an intelligence behind it. If you disagree, you are welcome to tell me how you would have gone about detecting an intelligence from utter chaos.
In a funny way, you have conceded that the universe is not necessarily ordered but could just as easily have been utterly chaotic and therefore the physical laws that define it cannot be necessary laws

It is nice that God had to retreat from earth to the very beginning of the universe but, the "light" from the beginning of the universe would still have been detected even if your God didn't actually create it. Just as water would still be wet even if your God wasn't there to create it.

I don't know what you are on about here. God by definition is the creator of the universe. You demanded for things we can detect that will tell us that the universe had a creator, I have shown you. If you think the universe didn't have a creator, then you are welcome to explain how something can begin to exist and work according to a specific pattern and yet be uncreated.

And with this, you show that you don't understand the argument. Saying "everything proves God" is saying nothing about God. Since we sometimes observe tsunamis and sometimes don't, does it mean God both wants tsunamis and doesn't want them?

And this shows you haven't understood my argument. I didn't merely say "everything proves God". I have given you the characteristics of the universe by which we know it has a creator. Once again, if you think the universe didn't have a creator, then you are welcome to explain how something can begin to exist and work according to a specific pattern and yet be uncreated.

Yet the universe also has chaos inbuilt. Is he in support of chaos and at the same time against it?

.....and by "chaos inbuilt the universe" you mean? Specifics please.

mazaje: @ Anony do you believe in a god that interacts in the world, example do you believe in a god answers prayers?. . .

Yes I believe He does

striktlymi:

Are you sure you know what the fallacy of false dichotomy is about? If you do then you should realise that all that is needed to show this fallacy in your argument is present just one more option to the ones you already presented.

I already told you this several times and posted a reference link for you to realize this.

striktlymi:
Being detectable and being not detectable? To whom?...You, me, the whole of mankind?

It can be implied from your argument that you mean the whole of creation or better still mankind.

Now why will will you make such a statement? I used your own example of it being detectable to one person as satisfying the criterion for being detectable.

striktlymi:
Note that there is a huge difference between: 'being detectable' and 'being detectable to at least one person'.

No there isn't. Being detectable to at least one person is a subset of being detectable. If he is detectable to two people, he is still detectable.

striktlymi:
Your second premise: 2. If he does exist, then either he interacts with the universe in a detectable manner or he doesn't.

talks about God interacting with the Universe in a detectable manner which can be interpreted that God needs to interact with the whole of creation which includes the whole human race.

As I said, it doesn't.

striktlymi:
That premise does not give room for partial interaction though you have denied this despite it being obvious from your premise.

I'm not denying that, I'm saying that the idea of being half detectable and half undetectable is incoherent. If it is detectable, then it is detectable and not partially detectable.

striktlymi:
The options from the premise are (a) God interacts in a detectable manner to everyone or he does not....but there are further options as I have stated before which I now have reasons to believe that you deliberately decide not to see.

I'm sorry but this is a strawman. I didn't say it had to be detectable to everyone.

striktlymi:
God can decide to be detectable to just one person and not the whole of mankind.

He can decide to be detectable to more than one person but not the whole of mankind till the (n-1)th number of people on Earth.

Whether you accept or not the fallacy of false dichotomy is on you.

If he decides to be detectable to even one person only, then he is detectable and thus interacts with the universe. Frankly it looks like you don't know what you're to do to show that I've committed this fallacy. The reference link would have helped you with this hopefully better than I have.

mazaje:
OK. . . .
Or causes. . . .
What was the universe designed for?

This is irrelevant to the thread. I don't need to know exactly what it is designed for in other to know that it is a design. All I have to show on this thread is evidence that the universe was designed.

. . .How does the universe behave and what was it designed and created for?. . .

How does the universe behave? It acts in accordance to physical laws of nature e.g the law of gravity

When we see the universe we see utter chaos. . .Collinding stars, exploding stars that give rise to new stars, collisions that form planets and destroy planets etc. . .What specific patters does the universe follow?

Try specific patterns of motion such that we can calculate and predict these movements, collisions and explosions.

. . .Why must there be a god and not many gods?. . .If you insist that the universe must follow the way a human society functions then there must be gods and not a single god. . .The universe is not a human society and must not behave or function as one.. .

I never said anything about the universe functioning as a human society

thehomer:
I used your own example of it being detectable to one person as satisfying the criterion for being detectable.

Well this nullifies your whole argument. Millions detect him and profess so everyday. They detect God in all the wonder that they see: particularly with reference to seeing living, thinking, conscious, sentient, knowing, sapient beings, the technology for which remains beyond the highest human intelligence but which you seek to claim was performed by dead matter. Bro, you are funny indeed.

If you laugh at or reject religious notions of God, I can understand that. I cannot understand however, laughing at or rejecting the philosophical and indeed, scientific necessity of God.

Deep Sight: .

It does, when you say this:



It is possible that you might not be able to detect it. That is logically possible.

By we, I meant people in general. One human person would be enough to satisfy this requirement.

Deep Sight:
Of course, man has logically and intuitively detected the existence of God from the dawn of time. This is why you have all the concepts of God all over the world. No body, save mad men, see the sort of extensive design of the human brain, and its functions far in excess of that which is warranted by evolution, and concludes that it is the product of un-directed mindless matter. It takes madness, to believe that.

Since we're just stamping our feet and making assertions, then I too say that it is only a mad or ignorant man in these modern times would take a look at the world and believe that it had a God behind it.

Deep Sight:
The argument does not say that God is all good. It does not even say that God is benevolent. It says that God is necessary.

At all events, for anything to exist, something or the other must be self existent. I have already told you severally why matter cannot be the self existent, but you never just get the very simple reason why. Self existent things are not mutable.

That it is necessary, self-existent and living.

By necessary, I take it that you mean logically necessary. You'll need an argument for that. The rest are just assertions and misuse of words. How can God be living when it isn't at the very least made of cells? Or are you using a hidden definition of "living"?

To be clear, the conclusion of the argument was:

5. If we cannot tell that he does exist, then we cannot know about any other properties it could have.

Mr anony:
What then do you define God as? Since you have rejected the very definition of God which Christians believe in. perhaps you may want to define the God you had in mind.

I don't believe in one. It is up to you to actually justify your own definitions.

Mr anony:
I'm sure you have access to a dictionary

Sure I do. And I know how easy it is to confuse those terms.

Mr anony:
The fact that there are possible worlds where things such as the speed of light, gravity, the strong and weak nuclear forces can be different from what they are here tells me that the laws of this universe are not necessary laws.

Err. You don't know that there are possible worlds with different constants.

Mr anony:
Interestingly this proves my point. The fact that the universe works according to a specific pattern tells us that there is an intelligence behind it. If you disagree, you are welcome to tell me how you would have gone about detecting an intelligence from utter chaos.
In a funny way, you have conceded that the universe is not necessarily ordered but could just as easily have been utterly chaotic and therefore the physical laws that define it cannot be necessary laws

No I haven't I'm simply pointing out to you that if the universe had been that way or if we had observed a universe that way, you would have said the same thing thus explaining nothing.

Mr anony:
I don't know what you are on about here. God by definition is the creator of the universe. You demanded for things we can detect that will tell us that the universe had a creator, I have shown you. If you think the universe didn't have a creator, then you are welcome to explain how something can begin to exist and work according to a specific pattern and yet be uncreated.

Well, you'll have to do some work justifying your definition. Again, water would still be wet with or without your God. The universe already does that so for your explanation, look to the universe.

Mr anony:
And this shows you haven't understood my argument. I didn't merely say "everything proves God". I have given you the characteristics of the universe by which we know it has a creator. Once again, if you think the universe didn't have a creator, then you are welcome to explain how something can begin to exist and work according to a specific pattern and yet be uncreated.

You haven't because the features you gave would still hold without your God so you haven't explained anything at all.

Mr anony:
.....and by "chaos inbuilt the universe" you mean? Specifics please.

I mean that there are chaotic elements within the universe.

Mr anony:
Yes I believe He does

Hmm. So you had a more specific idea of God in mind. For some reason, you didn't try to be more specific in your first attempt.

Deep Sight:

Well this nullifies your whole argument. Millions detect him and profess so everyday. They detect God in all the wonder that they see: particularly with reference to seeing living, thinking, conscious, sentient, knowing, sapient beings, the technology for which remains beyond the highest human intelligence but which you seek to claim was performed by dead matter. Bro, you are funny indeed.

No it doesn't. Millions of people can be and have been wrong about what they thought they detected. People have had wishful thinking, delusions, hallucinations, illusions, faulty memory and many other issues.

Deep Sight:
If you laugh at or reject religious notions of God, I can understand that. I cannot understand however, laughing at or rejecting the philosophical and indeed, scientific necessity of God.

Yet philosophers and scientists have been doing their work without the need for introducing God. I wonder why.

thehomer:

By we, I meant people in general. One human person would be enough to satisfy this requirement.

O, one line containing two sentences in perfect contradiction.

Second sentence defeats your argument, since not just one, but millions, profess to detect God and even hear God. And oh, you cannot deny their statements since you are not within their mind or perceptions, you can never know, can you?

Since we're just stamping our feet and making assertions, then I too say that it is only a mad or ignorant man in these modern times would take a look at the world and believe that it had a God behind it.

Dont worry, dead matter, rock and gases did it all by their very intelligent selves.

And ignorant about what? Ignorant about the capacity of dead rocks and gases to, given sufficient time, form intelligent beings of culture and knowledge such as us?

You are hilarious.

By necessary, I take it that you mean logically necessary. You'll need an argument for that. The rest are just assertions and misuse of words. How can God be living when it isn't at the very least made of cells? Or are you using a hidden definition of "living"?

Answering this question to you, would amount to throwing cheap jewelry (not pearls) before swine. No offence intended mate, just meant proverbially about he who will not appreciate anything, no matter how simple or valuable.

To be clear, the conclusion of the argument was:

5. If we cannot tell that he does exist, then we cannot know about any other properties it could have.

Just as surely as when we see houses, we cannot tell who built them, or that they must have have a mind, or hands.

Mr anony:

Very true but just so you lot don't make the magic jump to the conclusion therefore God does not exist I'll make a parody argument.

In the land of the blind, a blind man once said:

1. Light either exists or it doesn't exist.
2. If it does exist, then either it interacts with the universe in a detectable manner or it doesn't.
3. If it does, then we should be able to detect it.
4. If it doesn't, then it's existence is indistinguishable from it's non-existence.
5. If we cannot tell that it does exist, then we cannot know about any other properties it could have.

To which a man one man replied: "But it is because of light that our plants grow. Surely we can detect our plants growing"

but the blind men rejected his explanation and unanimously shouted him down. "Light for all intents and purposes does not exist" they said.

Witty. Put astutely. Good work there bro.

Deep Sight:

O, one line containing two sentences in perfect contradiction.

Second sentence defeats your argument, since not just one, but millions, profess to detect God and even hear God. And oh, you cannot deny their statements since you are not within their mind or perceptions, you can never know, can you?

This is of course a text book case of the bandwagon fallacy. Millions claiming to detect God or to hear him doesn't make it true. For all we know, those claiming to hear him may have some psychological problems while others claim to detect him because he got them a parking space near the supermarket entrance. If they can actually hear God, then God is interacting with the universe in some way.

Deep Sight:
Dont worry, dead matter, rock and gases did it all by their very intelligent selves.

And ignorant about what? Ignorant about the capacity of dead rocks and gases to, given sufficient time, form intelligent beings of culture and knowledge such as us?

You are hilarious.

I am sometimes hilarious when I want to be but you're just making a strawman argument here because nothing I said actually leads to that conclusion.

Deep Sight:
Answering this question to you, would amount to throwing cheap jewelry (not pearls) before swine. No offence intended mate, just meant proverbially about he who will not appreciate anything, no matter how simple or valuable.

Oh I appreciate a lot of things. It is just you people with your hubris and desire to be special that crack me up. Throw cheap jewelry or broken glass. It is up to you.

Deep Sight:
Just as surely as when we see houses, we cannot tell who built them, or that they must have have a mind, or hands.

The universe is a very different beast from a house. It is like comparing an apple to a pod of whales.

thehomer:

This is of course a text book case of the bandwagon fallacy. Millions claiming to detect God or to hear him doesn't make it true. For all we know, those claiming to hear him may have some psychological problems while others claim to detect him because he got them a parking space near the supermarket entrance. If they can actually hear God, then God is interacting with the universe in some way.

Of course, because they are living beings, who recognize that they use material tools to perceive a material world; it being more than evident to any thinking being, that he does not consist of matter. These people can then locate the glaring fact of their intangible existence as beings, and as such recognize the fount of life itself as non material and intangible.

I am sometimes hilarious when I want to be but you're just making a strawman argument here because nothing I said actually leads to that conclusion.

[size=16pt]DO NOT BE A COWARD NOW. EVERYTHING YOU HAVE SAID INESCAPABLY MEANS THAT YOU SAY THAT DEAD MATTER AND GASES, GIVEN ENOUGH TIME, WILL IN FACT AND DID IN FACT PRODUCE CONSCIOUS INTELLIGENT, KNOWING SAPIENT BEINGS.[/size]

Oh I appreciate a lot of things.

About as many things as a corpse appreciates, I guess.

The universe is a very different beast from a house. It is like comparing an apple to a pod of whales.

A self existent universe should surprise you just about as much as a self existent house should, if not more: for a self existent universe contains many more vastly amazing and intricate things than any house does.

You, of course, being one such amazing thing.

thehomer: I don't believe in one. It is up to you to actually justify your own definitions.

the question was how do you define God? not whether you believed in God.

Sure I do. And I know how easy it is to confuse those terms.

good

Err. You don't know that there are possible worlds with different constants.

Sorry your argument here is moot because you have already conceded that it is possible for the universe to work in a way totally different to how it currently works

No I haven't I'm simply pointing out to you that if the universe had been that way or if we had observed a universe that way, you would have said the same thing thus explaining nothing.

and this shows that you believe it is possible for physical laws to be different than how they are now. You agree that physical laws are not the way they are by necessity

Well, you'll have to do some work justifying your definition. Again, water would still be wet with or without your God. The universe already does that so for your explanation, look to the universe.

But you have just conceded that the physical laws defining the universe do not exist necessarily but arbitrarily. this allows for an agent. Secondly the universe has a beginning. If something begins to exist and works according to a specific pattern such that it's behavior can be accurately predicted and not many other possible ways, It can be said to be created. Secondly, water is wet by definition does not tell us that it is or isn't created. A computer computes by definition equally does not tell us whether or not it is created. I am making an argument of function (how a thing works) and you are attacking a strawman of form (how a thing is)

You haven't because the features you gave would still hold without your God so you haven't explained anything at all.

As I said, if you think the universe didn't have a creator, then you are welcome to explain how something can begin to exist and work according to a specific pattern and yet be uncreated.

I mean that there are chaotic elements within the universe.

I remember asking for specifics

thehomer:

No it doesn't. Millions of people can be and have been wrong about what they thought they detected. People have had wishful thinking, delusions, hallucinations, illusions, faulty memory and many other issues.

O yes, delusions such as the intricacy required for the existence of a human, or any brain, for that matter. No doubt that is nothing but our imagination, a delusion - which of course was put together by mindless matter and gases which simply had enough time to arrive at that!

Yet philosophers and scientists have been doing their work without the need for introducing God. I wonder why.

O, we do not speak of their work, which they may get right or wrong at any time. We speak of the necessity of God: which necessity, has nothing to do with their work, whatever they may propound or not propound.

Don't worry, with time, this could become a human being - Thehomer

By Spontaneous generation in a primordial soup, and subsequently by natural selection, no help needed.

Deep Sight: Don't worry, with time, this could become a human being - Thehomer

lololol...

thehomer:

I already told you this several times and posted a reference link for you to realize this.



Now why will will you make such a statement? I used your own example of it being detectable to one person as satisfying the criterion for being detectable.



No there isn't. Being detectable to at least one person is a subset of being detectable. If he is detectable to two people, he is still detectable.



As I said, it doesn't.



I'm not denying that, I'm saying that the idea of being half detectable and half undetectable is incoherent. If it is detectable, then it is detectable and not partially detectable.



I'm sorry but this is a strawman. I didn't say it had to be detectable to everyone.



If he decides to be detectable to even one person only, then he is detectable and thus interacts with the universe. Frankly it looks like you don't know what you're to do to show that I've committed this fallacy. The reference link would have helped you with this hopefully better than I have.

Enjoy your thread o! I don comot! This ya plan to take this thread to the 15th page shall not work.

Deep Sight:

Of course, because they are living beings, who recognize that they use material tools to perceive a material world; it being more than evident to any thinking being, that he does not consist of matter. These people can then locate the glaring fact of their intangible existence as beings, and as such recognize the fount of life itself as non material and intangible.

But you do consist of matter unless of course you're not human.

Deep Sight:
[size=16pt]DO NOT BE A COWARD NOW. EVERYTHING YOU HAVE SAID INESCAPABLY MEANS THAT YOU SAY THAT DEAD MATTER AND GASES, GIVEN ENOUGH TIME, WILL IN FACT AND DID IN FACT PRODUCE CONSCIOUS INTELLIGENT, KNOWING SAPIENT BEINGS.[/size]

Dead matter? Is the moon alive or dead? Last time I checked, it consisted of matter. No I don't say that because there are certain conditions required.

Deep Sight:
About as many things as a corpse appreciates, I guess.

Can a corpse appreciate great wine?

Deep Sight:
A self existent universe should surprise you just about as much as a self existent house should, if not more: for a self existent universe contains many more vastly amazing and intricate things than any house does.

You, of course, being one such amazing thing.

Meh. A universe is still very different from a house.

Mr anony:
the question was how do you define God? not whether you believed in God.

The single deity of various monotheistic religions.

Mr anony:
good

Sorry your argument here is moot because you have already conceded that it is possible for the universe to work in a way totally different to how it currently works

No I did not concede that. What I said was that if the universe had been any other way, you would have made the same statement. It does not mean that the universe actually could have been any other way.

Mr anony:
and this shows that you believe it is possible for physical laws to be different than how they are now. You agree that physical laws are not the way they are by necessity

No I do not agree with that claim either.
e.g If I could fly, I would fly to the top of the Leaning Tower of Pisa. Does this mean that I believe I can fly?

Mr anony:
But you have just conceded that the physical laws defining the universe do not exist necessarily but arbitrarily. this allows for an agent. Secondly the universe has a beginning. If something begins to exist and works according to a specific pattern such that it's behavior can be accurately predicted and not many other possible ways, It can be said to be created. Secondly, water is wet by definition does not tell us that it is or isn't created. A computer computes by definition equally does not tell us whether or not it is created. I am making an argument of function (how a thing works) and you are attacking a strawman of form (how a thing is)

No I made no such concession. So the sun was created? So were hydrogen and the ocean? Again, explains everything, explains nothing. Water is not wet by definition. Water can be H₂O by definition, a chemical by definition but not wet by definition. Wetness is one of its properties. Just as it is also a property of kerosene. I don't see how you can talk about a computer computing without having some notion of how it actually is.

Mr anony:
As I said, if you think the universe didn't have a creator, then you are welcome to explain how something can begin to exist and work according to a specific pattern and yet be uncreated.

The moon began to exist and it orbits round the earth but it wasn't created by anyone.

Mr anony:
I remember asking for specifics

Would you like an article? Because that is specific enough to make my point.

Deep Sight:

O yes, delusions such as the intricacy required for the existence of a human, or any brain, for that matter. No doubt that is nothing but our imagination, a delusion - which of course was put together by mindless matter and gases which simply had enough time to arrive at that!

Huh? How you make these leaps, I will never know.

Deep Sight:
O, we do not speak of their work, which they may get right or wrong at any time. We speak of the necessity of God: which necessity, has nothing to do with their work, whatever they may propound or not propound.

If they can do their work without introducing your God, then your God is not necessary for them to do their work.