But I have you quoted as saying:


Care to explain that hilarious insight?

Hey, when you care to start using the same language everyone else is using, come back and try again, okay?  I never know what you say because it will never remain the same.

All you're doing is applying the word "religion" to everything and anything where it loses all relevance to this discussion.

I don't need to argue or debate against you.  You defeat yourself over and over by your own statements.  You lose to yourself.

Name:   the joint
Posts:   4183
Activity:   1414
Position:   Legendary
Bitcoin address:   1HHrdYxRSN1vmDHr4wfW9v5vQgshfEqqND

You have been preempted.

Baseball players are devoted to their team and to team spirit.  Wow cool. I guess baseball is a religion just like atheism and science.

Oh, what was that you were saying before about how Christianity *is not* a religion?

By the way, I was serious about making a thread of your contradictory posts.  From the first 2 pages of your post history, I already have close to two-dozen contradictions.

Here's a sneak peak:

But you've cited multiple definitions of the word "religion."  When you do that, your argument immediately becomes inconsistent because proving a point according to one definition says absolutely nothing about what you're trying to prove in the context of the other(s) definition(s).

You need to pick one definition, stick to it, and quit slipping around without any argumentative traction.  If you don't, you just present unconnected ideas that don't in any way support each other.

Not too much in a formal setting.  I took a few classes and had six college and post-grad professors tell me I picked the wrong major and should have gone into Philosophy.  Independently, I've been studying it about 13-14 years or so.

Incorrect, it would still be omnipotent.  You're making an incredibly common (holy shit is it common) but incredibly subtle (holy shit is it subtle) mistake.  The resolution comes from an understanding of logical structure.

Logic is self-referential.  Logic says, "sound logic is sound because sound logic says so."

Let's look at that self-relational statement and break it down:

"Sound logic (subject) is sound (object) because [the subject] says so."

What we have here is a relational statement whereby the subject has the capacity to objectify something else.  This means that logic operates at two levels, and this interplay is present at all times in every rational statement that can possibly be made.

First, we have the 'syntax' level of the subject, and the 'object' level of the object.  The syntax level is objective and absolute relative to the object-level, but the object level is only relative to the syntax level.

I'll try to model this with an example:
-  First. imagine that you have a thought.  This thought is merely a mental object.
-  Second, you have a thought about that thought, "I had a thought about an apple."  Here, you are using logical syntax to describe a logical object.
-  Third, you have another thought about the thought you just had, "I was thinking about a thought about an apple."  Note what happens here -- the thought of the apple, which was originally at the syntax or descriptive level, was just thrust down into the object level, and now it, too, is being objectified and described by another syntax-level thought.

This is why remaining logically consistent with paradoxes is so hard.  You need to be very careful about the way that the things you attempt to describe shift between these levels as you describe them.  

The point of this is that every time you find an apparently irreconcilable contradiction with the idea of omnipotence, you can always reintroduce omnipotence at the syntax level as an objective descriptor.  

More generally, the point of this is to highlight that "absolute" and "omnipotent" are still inherently relational to something else, and could be isomorphically limited by higher levels of syntax such that they are both absolute and relative, omnipotent and constrained, etc. at the same time.

No, omnipotence precludes this invalidation precisely because enabling contradictions or paradoxes to exist would necessarily be within the abilities of an omnipotent entity.  There is no reason why an omnipotent entity can't also be constrained; the constraints are topological and they could be removed.

No.  Omnipotence is the defining characteristic of an Intelligent Designer.  In other words, omnipotence (i.e. a total lack of constraint) is the only characteristic which would distinguish an ID's identity as separate from any number of constrained forms it could take (e.g. a Flying Spaghetti Monster that is also omnipotent).  Accordingly, any constraints invoked via that omnipotence constitute topological changes only, and do not in any way change the fundamental nature of its identity.

Omnipotence implies that an omnipotent entity can place constraints upon itself such that it is both omnipotent and non-omnipotent simultaneously.  If omnipotence is the defining characteristic, then adding constraints via that omnipotence in no way changes its identity.

Omnipotence paradoxes are necessarily self-resolving.

I didn't say that at all. I make my own claims about Intelligent Design elsewhere.  My specific claim was exactly, "It is silly to believe in something without good reason [instead of evidence]."  Then, I obliged by providing the proof you continue to state you're looking for.

And from that, I'll re-quote the deductive argument:


My claims about whether I believe Intelligent Design actually exists are a separate issue:  To that extent, I have good reason to believe in Intelligent Design.  Evidence is irrelevant.

Other notes:
- I'm not afraid of the LHC.  It's awesome.  But we already know it's an impossibility to reach a theoretical limit of explanation through inductive reasoning, so we already know right off the bat Science has never, will never, and could never provide enough data to construct a theory of Reality at the height of general explanation.  Again, how many dozens of references do you want to support this?  One?  Ten?

- People can be correct for the wrong reasons, and wrong for the correct reasons.  In this case, the latter describes you.  You are totally justified in wanting to remain as logical, un-opinionated, and intellectually honest as possible.  If you don't know where the limits of Empiricism end, then I can't knock you for being ignorant to that knowledge.  But I would simply encourage you to read or re-read about them for yourself, because not only are you straw-manning me to death, but its clear you have some misunderstandings about Empiricism in general, particularly its non-empirical originals (i.e. *entirely* non-empirical origins).

-That deductive argument completely obliterates your point.  Reread it until you understand it.  No intellectual dishonesty on my part, only a projection of yours.

Responding according to paragraph:

1)  How many dozens of academic sources about the limits of Empiricism would you like me to cite for you?  A dozen?  Ten dozen?  This is common academic knowledge.  Do you realize how ridiculous you sound when you can find the implications of what I'm saying, either directly or indirectly, in literally thousands of works, grade school, high school, and collegiate text books, etc.?

Claim: It is silly to believe in something without evidence.
Counterclaim:  It is silly to believe in something without good reason.

Intelligent Design (assumption of religion) --> No evidence
Positivistic Universe (assumption of Empiricism and Science) --> No evidence

Scientists maintain the assumption of a Positivistic Universe without evidence.  The assumption is empirically unfalsifiable (to scientifically falsify this assumption would require the observational collection of data in a Universe totally absent of any observers).

So, why do scientists maintain this assumption without evidence?  Simple -- they have a good reason to maintain the assumption.  Specifically, the reason is that it is sound to control for the effects of observer participation so long as we recognize and obey the rules of logical inference and inductive reasoning.

The face value of the assumptions of Intelligent Design and a Postivistic Universe are the same.  In the same way that scientists defer to reason to justify certain assumptions, you must also defer to reason to justify your assumption.

Evidence is irrelevant in this case. Sorry, you're wrong, and you will forever be wrong if you maintain this position.  It's not even any less unsound than anything BADecker has been saying.  There is nothing to debate, here.


2)   I'm not even religious.  I hate dogma, and I defer to no holy book or authority. I've submitted research proposals to the APA board and have carried out experimental studies.  I've taught research and experiment design in college classrooms.  You really had better check yourself if you are intellectually honest and care about the topic you're engaging in discussion.  Again, none of this is uncommon knowledge.  I can provide dozens of references for you.  No matter how you spin it, Intelligent Design falls outside the scope of Empiricism in the exact same way that Science's own assumptions fall outside the scope of Empiricism.  Evidence is an irrelevant consideration.  Sorry, you need to do better.  I don't know how else to tell you except you're wrong.

Simple deductive argument:
Premise 1  Empiricism cannot comment and explore upon that which is not bound by physical constraints (axiom; self-description).
Premise 2:  An omnipotent Intelligent Designer is not bound by physical constraints  (axiom; self-description)
Therefore: Empiricism cannot comment and explore upon an omnipotent Intelligent Designer.

TKO.  I'll give you the rest of your natural life to refute that.


3)  Flying Spaghetti Monster is an invalid analogy to an omnipotent Intelligent Designer.  An omnipotent Intelligent Designer is defined in terms of a lack of constraint while the FSM is defined in terms of constraint.  Phrased another way, a lack of constraint is the distinguishing characteristic -- the *only* one -- which differentiates between it and any constrained forms it could take, such as an FSM.  Accordingly, there theoretically would be a way to empirically prove or falsify an FSM but not an omnipotent Intelligent Designer.

I'm most comfortable with the term "Intelligent Designer," which I would define as an "omnipotent creator of reality."

Um...what?

It is not logical, however, to not believe in something because of a lack of physical evidence, and that seems to be the primary reason that most atheists are atheists.

All those years as a kid that I said "holy cow" must mean I was a Hindu, right?

Then why haven't you even changed your password yet?

Says the guy who thinks an inductive fallacy is about poor electrical semiconductors.

TKO.