Searching for GOD...

[Nearly Sane]

Logic, like energy and matter could be eternal.

But that then in needs another logical thing as per your previous post. You need to put together some form of clear propisitiinhere because you are all over the place.  If something logical does not need something preceding logical to exist, then the universe, if it is logical (something asserted so far rather than shown), can exist as that thing. If  something ligicasl needs some kind of pre existing logical thing, then that leads to an infinite regression, which you don't accept.
Are you in above post proposing that you can have a position where two separate logical things can be symbiotically providing the logic for each other?

If so show your working.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

But that then in needs another logical thing as per your previous post. You need to put together some form of clear propisitiinhere because you are all over the place.  If something logical does not need something preceding logical to exist, then the universe, if it is logical (something asserted so far rather than shown), can exist as that thing. If  something ligicasl needs some kind of pre existing logical thing, then that leads to an infinite regression, which you don't accept.
Are you in above post proposing that you can have a position where two separate logical things can be symbiotically providing the logic for each other?

If so show your working.

I take it you are suggesting that an eternal matter energy universe has to be logical ...please show your working for that.

Using ''the universe just is'' as arguments for how it is is an improper argument and that is my chief point.

Your argument seems to be that eternal logic is derived and dependent from eternal matter energy.

Alternatively you might be suggesting that logic is intrinsic to matter energy and therefore that takes us back to whether a chaotic universe could exist.

Or it could be that eternal matter is dependent on eternal logic...

[Nearly Sane]

I take it you are suggesting that an eternal matter energy universe has to be logical ...please show your working for that.

Using ''the universe just is'' as arguments for how it is is an improper argument and that is my chief point.

Your argument seems to be that eternal logic is derived and dependent from eternal matter energy.

Alternatively you might be suggesting that logic is intrinsic to matter energy and therefore that takes us back to whether a chaotic universe could exist.

Or it could be that eternal matter is dependent on eternal logic...

How can i be suggesting something or making an argument for something when I was asking you a set of questions trying to understand you and your position?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

How can i be suggesting something or making an argument for something when I was asking you a set of questions trying to understand you and your position?

Then hopefully you now know i'm aginst the validity as an answer to anything of saying if the universe wasn't etc. we wouldn't be here to argue about it.

And that I am amenable to the eternal and the ''eternally derived''.

And that I am amenable to consider eternal logic being derived from eternal matter energy but there is a problem with that in terms that matter energy being capable of being chaotic.

[Nearly Sane]

Then hopefully you now know i'm aginst the validity as an answer to anything of saying if the universe wasn't etc. we wouldn't be here to argue about it.

And that I am amenable to the eternal and the ''eternally derived''.

And that I am amenable to consider eternal logic being derived from eternal matter energy but there is a problem with that in terms that matter energy being capable of being chaotic.

Why are you answering some different set of questions?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Why are you answering some different set of questions?

What makes you think i'm here to answer questions?

[Nearly Sane]

What makes you think i'm here to answer questions?

Didn't say you were. But if you want to be understood, and something isn't clear, it would seem that you might want to help make your position understandable.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Didn't say you were. But if you want to be understood, and something isn't clear, it would seem that you might want to help make your position understandable.

Done in Reply #13953

[Nearly Sane]

Done in Reply #13953

When you wrote as follows:

I take it you are suggesting that an eternal matter energy universe has to be logical ...please show your working for that.

Using ''the universe just is'' as arguments for how it is is an improper argument and that is my chief point.

Your argument seems to be that eternal logic is derived and dependent from eternal matter energy.

Alternatively you might be suggesting that logic is intrinsic to matter energy and therefore that takes us back to whether a chaotic universe could exist.

Or it could be that eternal matter is dependent on eternal logic...

Which is all about statements about mythical arguments of mine and is not any answer to this

But that then in needs another logical thing as per your previous post. You need to put together some form of clear propisitiinhere because you are all over the place.  If something logical does not need something preceding logical to exist, then the universe, if it is logical (something asserted so far rather than shown), can exist as that thing. If  something ligicasl needs some kind of pre existing logical thing, then that leads to an infinite regression, which you don't accept.
Are you in above post proposing that you can have a position where two separate logical things can be symbiotically providing the logic for each other?

If so show your working.

And had already been pointed out as being a strawman and no answer.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

When you wrote as follows:


Which is all about statements about mythical arguments of mine and is not any answer to this

And had already been pointed out as being a strawman and no answer.

I'm not following you.
An infinite regression of logical things means/reduced to an eternity of logic or eternal logic doesn't it.

I am not against that as I have previously pointed out.

Therefore....what's your problem?

[Nearly Sane]

I'm not following you.
An infinite regression of logical things means/reduced to an eternity of logic or eternal logic doesn't it.

I am not against that as I have previously pointed out.

Therefore....what's your problem?

in this case that the sentence in bold doesn't make any sense.

BTW why did you suggest that you had answered something, that you now say you couldn't understand. This is contradictory.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

in this case that the sentence in bold doesn't make any sense.

BTW why did you suggest that you had answered something, that you now say you couldn't understand. This is contradictory.

I'm sorry...is this the five minute argument or the full half hour?
Since you are avoiding all explanations or questioning yourself and I don't get what it is your driving at.....I think we're done here.

[Outrider]

Isn't that, though, due to evading the question...''why is the universe so damn reasonable and logical and penetrable by science, philosophy, mathematics'' etc.?

Isn't that, though, just avoiding the question 'What makes you think there's a 'why'?'

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Isn't that, though, just avoiding the question 'What makes you think there's a 'why'?'

O.

Since the question why is quite standard in everyday life, why should the universe deserve special pleading? And isn't answering the question why? with a ''what makes you think there's a question why?''....just avoiding the question?

[Sassy]

And that website is an unevidenced claim. You need to stop personalising this and provide evidence, it's your burden of proof.

Truth... No burden of proof on myself. I am not the one who wants the evidence you are.
The responsibility of obtaining the proof is yours. Unless like I said.. You just don't want the truth because you cannot handle it.

No personalising just plain truth and it is your own burden to find your own truth.
But you can hide all you want behind sad excuses and pointless and even less convincing the " burden of proof" excuse. It won't change the fact you don't have proof because you don't want it or want to look for it. FULL STOP. No coming back for you with silly whining atheist excuses which carry no realistic grounds just a cover for hiding from the truth.

No you want truth you go get it, otherwise you don't have an argument in this conversation. FULL STOP!

[Nearly Sane]

Truth... No burden of proof on myself. I am not the one who wants the evidence you are.
The responsibility of obtaining the proof is yours. Unless like I said.. You just don't want the truth because you cannot handle it.

No personalising just plain truth and it is your own burden to find your own truth.
But you can hide all you want behind sad excuses and pointless and even less convincing the " burden of proof" excuse. It won't change the fact you don't have proof because you don't want it or want to look for it. FULL STOP. No coming back for you with silly whining atheist excuses which carry no realistic grounds just a cover for hiding from the truth.

No you want truth you go get it, otherwise you don't have an argument in this conversation. FULL STOP!

Simply saying something is true is not evidence. Accusing people of being silly, whining and liars is personalising  things.

[floo]

Truth... No burden of proof on myself. I am not the one who wants the evidence you are.
The responsibility of obtaining the proof is yours. Unless like I said.. You just don't want the truth because you cannot handle it.

No personalising just plain truth and it is your own burden to find your own truth.
But you can hide all you want behind sad excuses and pointless and even less convincing the " burden of proof" excuse. It won't change the fact you don't have proof because you don't want it or want to look for it. FULL STOP. No coming back for you with silly whining atheist excuses which carry no realistic grounds just a cover for hiding from the truth.

No you want truth you go get it, otherwise you don't have an argument in this conversation. FULL STOP!

You have no argument Sass, you are just stating your beliefs, without anything to back them up!

[ippy]

Truth... No burden of proof on myself. I am not the one who wants the evidence you are.
The responsibility of obtaining the proof is yours. Unless like I said.. You just don't want the truth because you cannot handle it.

No personalising just plain truth and it is your own burden to find your own truth.
But you can hide all you want behind sad excuses and pointless and even less convincing the " burden of proof" excuse. It won't change the fact you don't have proof because you don't want it or want to look for it. FULL STOP. No coming back for you with silly whining atheist excuses which carry no realistic grounds just a cover for hiding from the truth.

No you want truth you go get it, otherwise you don't have an argument in this conversation. FULL STOP!

Sass, what is it you don't understand about assertions made by anybody not just you, any assertion made needs to have evidence of some kind otherwise it's of no value.

I could go to my bank and try to draw a couple of million quid, what do you think the first thing they would ask of me would be? If I said "oh yes I've got about 42 million in my account in total", (an assertion), really Sass, what do you think the next question they would address to me would be?

1) The bank would take my word?

2) The bank would ask me where are these millions you say that you have?

It's just the same when you keep on asserting all the time and never have been able to back up any of your assertions with verifiable evidence of any kind.

ippy

P S, Seriously Sass, which question first?

[Outrider]

Since the question why is quite standard in everyday life, why should the universe deserve special pleading? And isn't answering the question why? with a ''what makes you think there's a question why?''....just avoiding the question?

The fact that many people presume there's a why in a variety of situations doesn't change the fact that you still need to justify the presumption. Where people, who we generally consider to be capable of making choices, are involved why is justifiable. In the broad expanse of the unconscious universe, you need a reason to think 'why' is valid.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The fact that many people presume there's a why in a variety of situations doesn't change the fact that you still need to justify the presumption. Where people, who we generally consider to be capable of making choices, are involved why is justifiable. In the broad expanse of the unconscious universe, you need a reason to think 'why' is valid.

O.

Why is not an answer and is a reasonable question therefore you are trumping up the question of validity.
The question is in the category why is the universe the way it is......which is incidently the foundation question for science as well.

[Outrider]

Why is not an answer and is a reasonable question therefore you are trumping up the question of validity.[/quotep

Why is purple? Why are fishes? Why is the universe? Are these, actually, valid questions? I think you'd need to justify thinking there might be a 'why' before you could accept that.

The question is in the category why is the universe the way it is......which is incidently the foundation question for science as well.

If you interpret 'why' as, what's the historic sequence of events, yes, but that's not the sense in which it's typically used.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

If you interpret 'why' as, what's the historic sequence of events, yes, but that's not the sense in which it's typically used.

O.

And what sense is that?

[Outrider]

And what sense is that?

What was/is the purpose of...

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

If you interpret 'why' as, what's the historic sequence of events, yes, but that's not the sense in which it's typically used.

O.

You seem to be linking science with history here. I'm wondering how tenuous that link might be since much of science is carried on without reference to time. Even cosmology.

[Outrider]

You seem to be linking science with history here.

Practical realities link science with history - science is the best tool we have for determining what probably occurred for most of history.

I'm wondering how tenuous that link might be since much of science is carried on without reference to time. Even cosmology.

I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at - time is intrinsic to pretty much all science.

O.