Posts by OldSoul

369

Why naturalism is irrational

by Shining One in

irrational naturalism (#201) .

by henry morris, ph.d. .

abstract .

OldSoul

the_classicist:

You apparently haven't been following the whole thread. Where have I written anything that would make you think I believe God cannot impact physical reality?

I don't remember writing anything to that effect. Did I? If so, I apologize. Or were you adressing me as though you know my beliefs already? I am not "religion in general" nor am I "most people." I am an individual. If you're going to try to argue against my beliefs, you could at least do me the courtesy of arguing against my beliefs.

But, if you'd rather just have a conversation with yourself that reinforces your stereotypical and prejudicial view of believers, knock yourself out. Sheez! You guys don't even see how pompous and egocentric you come across! You tell me you can't falsify my belief, but then you presume to tell me that my belief is meaningless? You don't see a sharp disconnect there? [edit to add]

God is held by most to be an unsensible mental agent

Odd. That is the first time I have ever heard God described that way. I would love to see the data that led you to conclude that one, if such data exists. OldSoul

369

Why naturalism is irrational

by Shining One in

irrational naturalism (#201) .

by henry morris, ph.d. .

abstract .

OldSoul

Cygnus: Maybe someone can explain it to me.

I believe someone can. Maybe you can ask for an explanation.

Respectfully,
OldSoul

369

Why naturalism is irrational

by Shining One in

irrational naturalism (#201) .

by henry morris, ph.d. .

abstract .

OldSoul

the_classicist:
E.g. your not having skinny-dipped in my grandmother's pond does not mean the experience has never been had by anyone. You have never seen my grandmother's pond, therefore you would be well within your rights to disagree that she has a pond, or even that I have a living grandmother. That doesn't make the experience I have had any less real. I really can't be expected to provide all the examples of experiences you haven't had, of course. As with any human, their number far outweighs the number of experiences you have had. Your conclusions stretch too far when you assert that your lack of sensational experiences automatically means no one has experienced what you have not experienced. You can speak to the lack of importance of God in your life. But you can't really expect to speak for everyone, it would seem presumptuous. Respectfully,
OldSoul

369

Why naturalism is irrational

by Shining One in

irrational naturalism (#201) .

by henry morris, ph.d. .

abstract .

OldSoul

jgnat,

Imagine, if you will, that all your life what you call green I see as what you call purple and vice versa.

We would both be able to point at the same green object and identify the color as green, but the only way we would know for sure we interpretted the reflection/absorbtion/refraction of light the same way is if I could look through your eyes with your perception.

That would be the only way to know for sure. It is a philosophy conundrum. I think that is what rem is alluding to.

Respectfully,
OldSoul

369

Why naturalism is irrational

by Shining One in

irrational naturalism (#201) .

by henry morris, ph.d. .

abstract .

OldSoul

the_classicist: It follows that we have no reason whatsoever to believe in God.

Actually, per your post and adhering to Lockean logic it follows that you have no reason whatsoever to believe in God. You cross the line of Lockean logic when you impose your perspective arrived at by your individual experiences on anyone extant from yourself. Is "extant" too arcane now? Edit that to read, "on anyone outside or standing apart from yourself."

You likewise have no reason whatsoever to believe someone who claim they HAVE had such an experience, since you haven't.

You likewise have no reason whatsoever to presume that because you have not experienced something that no one ever has.

You likewise have no reason to presume that someone's belief in God can be falsified.

Respectfully,
OldSoul

369

Why naturalism is irrational

by Shining One in

irrational naturalism (#201) .

by henry morris, ph.d. .

abstract .

OldSoul

"All people see the color green differently" - I disagree
"I believe there may be a spirit realm" - I disagree, but I could be wrong
"I have met Jesus and have a relationship with him" - I believe you are deluded

rem,

I understand what you are saying, in colloquial terms however, as far as I can tell these three provide you no basis for disproof or falsification of belief.

"I created the universe and all of your memories last Tuesday" - I believe you are deluded

Now, there is a basis for falsification. If you wish to continue believing that I am deluded, that is your prerogative. However, your belief is falsifiable and is therefore deluded. I just don't want you to leave this discussion without being made fully aware that if you cannot falsify a belief, the belief is not a delusion.

I believe I have met a spiritual being and have a relationship with it. You believe I am deluded. You cannot falsify my claim, so your belief is factually a delusion, while mine is colloquially a delusion.

I am comfortable with that state of affairs. Are you? If not, retract or falsify my belief.

OldSoul

30

name the bunny

by fairchild in

jw
friends

yes, i am stuck in this game again.

i can't go on until i find the name of this character.

http://www.simplecodeworks.com/mazito-2/lobster/index.html

OldSoul

Thanks. Figured out the Su Doku puzzle on alligator, takes you to a "Caesar Shift" encryption puzzle.

369

Why naturalism is irrational

by Shining One in

irrational naturalism (#201) .

by henry morris, ph.d. .

abstract .

OldSoul

Technically, you can't falsify his claim. I am not aware of any such cases, but there are many kinds of mental illnesses aside from delusion.

Did the guy create the world last Tuesday, and all your memories with it? Seriously, in this example there is an incredible amount of evidence to the contrary. In the example of a spiritual realm, you have no contraindicative data at all so delusion would be a very poor choice of word indeed. Maybe what you mean is simply that you disagree?

OldSoul

369

Why naturalism is irrational

by Shining One in

irrational naturalism (#201) .

by henry morris, ph.d. .

abstract .

OldSoul

In my opinion he or she is deluded

I believe in the spirit realm. QED, your belief is that I am deluded. Let's not mince words, shall we? That is why I stressed what the word delusion means. Because if it is a fact that if you cannot falsify my belief, I am not deluded.

Can you falsify my belief? If not, then your opinion (belief) is falsified by the definition of the word delusion. And no, that isn't a word game, it is a fact.

Please, since you insist on perpetuating your unproven assertion, falsify my belief. If you fail, you have been deluded. Hopefully you will recover, but I am holding out less hope for that after your latest post. You seem defensive of your logically indefensible position. [edited to add]

if a person believes in the spiritual realm then he or she is probably deluded

I wonder if you know what probably means as a qualifier in this context? If you read what you wrote carefully, it could be reworded this way without loosing one whit of denotation or connotation: "if a person believes in the spiritual real, then he or she is more likely than not suffering from a falsifiable belief." If you can't falsify belief in a spirit realm is it intellectually honest to assert that is likely that such belief can be falsified? Not in my opinion. Ockham's Razor would say, no, as well. OldSoul

369

Why naturalism is irrational

by Shining One in

irrational naturalism (#201) .

by henry morris, ph.d. .

abstract .

OldSoul

I like what Danny Bonaducci (spelling?) said about his show. Something to the effect that his life was a train wreck, and he couldn't blame anyone for wanting to slow down and take a look.

So, maybe you aren't a jerk, Cygnus. Unless you are holding up traffic to look .

Respectfully,
OldSoul