God and the supernatural have no objective existence...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No. You are the one who keeps banging on about the Trinity.

Notwithstanding that Jesus was "fully human" and thus a composite of cells. Not only is God a composite but so is one of its components.

Can one be three? Yes, there are lots of analogies, 3 in 1 oil, water, ice, steam, father, son and clarinet player who canall be the same person. A Venn diagram can even show how you can get three in one.
Your confusion is down to thinking spatially. Jesus can be both human and God. Not a physical composite and no independent existence in God.

I suppose you have your commitment to physicalism to think about.

[jeremyp]

Your confusion is down to thinking specially.

|I'm not confused. I'm just pointing out the logical failure of your position.

Jesus can be both human and God.

Ah, a composite.

Not a physical composite

Hark! the sound of goalposts moving.

and no independent existence in God.

Nobody is disputing that.The fact that some components of an entity have no existence independent of that entity does not mean that the entity is not a composite.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

|I'm not confused. I'm just pointing out the logical failure of your position.
Ah, a composite.
Hark! the sound of goalposts moving.
Nobody is disputing that.The fact that some components of an entity have no existence independent of that entity does not mean that the entity is not a composite.

Not moving the goalpost Jeremy, because I have said before that God is spirit . I have never been talking about a composite, mixture, reaction between the human and divine to form a compound or composition in the physical sense.
Jesus' humanity is not God.. It is not then, the prime mover, first cause or ground of being of theology.

There is no spatial relationship between God and humanity.

I disagree that this defies logic. It defies physicalism.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Not moving the goalpost Jeremy, because I have said before that God is spirit . I have never been talking about a composite, mixture, reaction between the human and divine to form a compound or composition in the physical sense.
Jesus' humanity is not God.. It is not then, the prime mover, first cause or ground of being of theology.

There is no spatial relationship between God and humanity.

I disagree that this defies logic. It defies physicalism.

You're right that it's not logically wrong. Your problem though is that it's not even logically wrong.

There's nothing there that's amenable to logical analysis - it's all white noise: "spirit"; "ground of being" etc. The problem with just inventing this mindless clap trap though is that I can just as well invent my own bollocks word salad too so as to justify my belief in leprechauns.

If ever you feel like arguing something logic apt that doesn't collapse immediately into one or several fallacies though, by all means give it a go.     

[Gordon]

Not moving the goalpost Jeremy, because I have said before that God is spirit . I have never been talking about a composite, mixture, reaction between the human and divine to form a compound or composition in the physical sense.
Jesus' humanity is not God.. It is not then, the prime mover, first cause or ground of being of theology.

There is no spatial relationship between God and humanity.

I disagree that this defies logic. It defies physicalism.

At the end of the day, Vlad, you are just another hallelujah merchant who would much prefer it if his bizarre beliefs could somehow be viewed as being evidenced and rational, even though your attempts at that all fail - so you end up nonsensically thrashing about, but getting nowhere: 'all sound and fury, signifying nothing' right enough.

Why can't you just be satisfied with a 'this is my personal faith' and leave it at that?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hi Gordon,

At the end of the day, Vlad, you are just another hallelujah merchant who would much prefer it if his bizarre beliefs could somehow be viewed as being evidenced and rational, even though your attempts at that all fail - so you end up nonsensically thrashing about, but getting nowhere: 'all sound and fury, signifying nothing' right enough.

Why can't you just be satisfied with a 'this is my personal faith' and leave it at that?

Long ago and far away I suggested to Vlad that he’d be on much safer ground by confining himself to, “look, I can’t justify any of this with argument or sound reasoning but “god” is my personal faith belief nonetheless and that’s the beginning and end of it”. That comes at a price though – namely that subjective opinion is all he has, and he doesn’t like the consequence that his faith belief “God” is therefore epistemologically equivalent to my faith belief “leprechauns” (which is is).

The result is that he’s forever forced to try to justify his subjective beliefs as actually objective facts, but all he has is shit arguments to do the job. That’s why when even he finally sees that the gig’s up his last throw of the dice is “because the Bible says so” as he tried just a few posts ago.         

[Walt Zingmatilder]

At the end of the day, Vlad, you are just another hallelujah merchant.

Well I'm afraid I haven't been impressed by the empiricism, physicalism, naturalism, Humism, humanism, New atheism ans scientism on this forum.
 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

You're right that it's not logically wrong. Your problem though is that it's not even logically wrong.

There's nothing there that's amenable to logical analysis - it's all white noise: "spirit"; "ground of being" etc. The problem with just inventing this mindless clap trap though is that I can just as well invent my own bollocks word salad too so as to justify my belief in leprechauns.

If ever you feel like arguing something logic apt that doesn't collapse immediately into one or several fallacies though, by all means give it a go.   

And it may be, Hillside that you are too long in the Tooth and self impressed to be persuaded other wise so good luck to you.
So I don't continue on here primarily with you in mind.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Hi Gordon,


The result is that he’s forever forced to try to justify his subjective beliefs as actually objective facts, but all he has is shit arguments to do the job. That’s why when even he finally sees that the gig’s up his last throw of the dice is “because the Bible says so”
   

You must have been absent when I said I cannot prove God.

Also, It goes without saying that the Bible has to chime with a person for them to respond to it, positively or negatively. Have you read it? Then of course if you don't know what the Bible says how do you know what the claims are?

As I have said before the Bible could be stripped of everything apart from the idea that we are all sinners in need of a saviour.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Well I'm afraid I haven't been impressed by the empiricism, physicalism, naturalism, Humism, humanism, New atheism ans scientism on this forum.

Perhaps you might be if you at least found out what these terms actually entail rather than relied on your personal straw men versions of them?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

And it may be, Hillside that you are too long in the Tooth and self impressed to be persuaded other wise so good luck to you.

No, just find and present here a justifying argument that isn’t shit and I’ll be persuaded otherwise.

So I don't continue on here primarily with you in mind.

Who then – the logically impaired? Six-year-olds? The already gaslit into the hall of mirrors world of bollocksology you so smugly and dishonestly occupy? Who? 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

You must have been absent when I said I cannot prove God.

But I wasn’t absent when a you asserted frequently that the universe must have a “necessary” creator remember? Shame you’ve just run away every time you’ve been asked to justify that assertion with something other than the fallacy of composition, but there it is nonetheless. 

Also, It goes without saying that the Bible has to chime with a person for them to respond to it, positively or negatively. Have you read it?

“Chiming” with and “providing objective evidence for” are not the same thing, notwithstanding your attempt to treat them as if they are. Lots of people find the Harry Potter books “chime” with them too. Does that mean there really are flying broomsticks? 

As I have said before the Bible could be stripped of everything apart from the idea that we are all sinners in need of a saviour.

Reducing it to just one dehumanising, emotionally impoverished and entirely evidence-free idea doesn’t make it any more reliable as a source of objective fact - which is why your attempt at using it as such as a last refuge a few posts died on its arse before it even got its trousers on.   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

But I wasn’t absent when a you asserted frequently that the universe must have a “necessary” creator remember? Shame you’ve just run away every time you’ve been asked to justify that assertion with something other than the fallacy of composition, but there it is nonetheless. 

“Chiming” with and “providing objective evidence for” are not the same thing, notwithstanding your attempt to treat them as if they are. Lots of people find the Harry Potter books “chime” with them too. Does that mean there really are flying broomsticks? 

Reducing it to just one dehumanising, emotionally impoverished and entirely evidence-free idea doesn’t make it any more reliable as a source of objective fact - which is why your attempt at using it as such as a last refuge a few posts died on its arse before it even got its trousers on.   

I'm sorry but the problems with opposition to my posts.
On your part include,
The circularity of Empiricism, physicalism, naturalism, Fallacy of modernity, the supposed existence of physical infinities, unaccounted contingency, circular hierarchies of being, misuse of fallacy of composition, composite necessary beings, and your claims that arguments concerning morality and epistemology had been debunked in favour of you when a search reveals that not to be the case, your ideas on emergence,
Your acceptance of simulated universe theory.

[Gordon]

I'm sorry but the problems with opposition to my posts.
On your part include,
The circularity of Empiricism, physicalism, naturalism, Fallacy of modernity, the supposed existence of physical infinities, unaccounted contingency, circular hierarchies of being, misuse of fallacy of composition, composite necessary beings, and your claims that arguments concerning morality and epistemology had been debunked in favour of you when a search reveals that not to be the case, your ideas on emergence,
Your acceptance of simulated universe theory.

You're ranting, Vlad - not a pretty sight.

Instead of sounding off at what you wrongly imagine others are saying, why not provide a convincing argument, on grounds that are independent of anyone's personal inclinations, regarding why any of us should take Christianity seriously.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

|I'm not confused. I'm just pointing out the logical failure of your position.
Ah, a composite.
Hark! the sound of goalposts moving.
Nobody is disputing that.The fact that some components of an entity have no existence independent of that entity does not mean that the entity is not a composite.

In terms of the trinity, what does God the son comprise of? That's right God, What does God the father comprise of? That's right God.What does the Holy spirit comprise of ? You've guessed it.
And since none exist independently what is there? That's right, God. Something comprised of a single 'substance' cannot imho
be termed a composite.
In terms of Jesus, there is never any suggestion in the bible that the 'flesh' is the necessary entity.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You're ranting, Vlad - not a pretty sight.

Instead of sounding off at what you wrongly imagine others are saying, why not provide a convincing argument, on grounds that are independent of anyone's personal inclinations, regarding why any of us should take Christianity seriously.

Unfortunately your arguments fall into the categories of subjects with problems.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

just one dehumanising, emotionally impoverished and entirely evidence-free idea.

Interesting notion of yours, care to discuss it and perhaps actually justify it some time?

[Gordon]

Unfortunately your arguments fall into the categories of subjects with problems.

I'm not making any arguments though - simply pointing out the flaws in arguments made by theists, such as yourself, is not the same as thing as making an argument.

My atheism is based on the rejection of arguments made by theists - but I'm not making any kind of substantive argument in favour of atheism, since I can't see that there is one anyway!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I'm not making any arguments though - simply pointing out the flaws in arguments made by theists, such as yourself, is not the same as thing as making an argument.

My atheism is based on the rejection of arguments made by theists - but I'm not making any kind of substantive argument in favour of atheism, since I can't see that there is one anyway!

As far as I recall you’ve declared certain things to be absolutely impossible and you’ve dismissed the Bible because it is an ancient text(fallacy of modernity). And that’s before we get to name calling (allelujah merchant).

[Gordon]

As far as I recall you’ve declared certain things to be absolutely impossible and you’ve dismissed the Bible because it is an ancient text(fallacy of modernity). And that’s before we get to name calling (allelujah merchant).

I've said that the Bible, and especially the NT, includes anecdotal accounts that lack provenance, and that for these to be taken seriously would require the risks of mistakes and lies to be meaningfully addressed - and as far as I can see, you guys don't want to deal with that issue.

Calling you a hallelujah merchant isn't an insult - it's a descriptive critique based on what you've posted of late.

[Outrider]

I think we must give precedency to Jesus statement that the Son and the father are one.

Which 'we' is this, Batman? Christian doctrine wants to have its cake and eat it - sometimes there are three entities, sometimes there's one, and when the contradiction gets called out it gets hand-waved away to avoid the realisation that you have a polytheistic religion before we ever get anywhere near Satan (who's not a deity, he's an angel, which is a divine supernatural being like God, but different because obvs.) and the angels (likewise because reasons), and saints (who are totally not demigods, honest).

Since the members of the trinity have no separate existence.

So despite the claims, then, Jesus was entirely God when he was on Earth, knew exactly what was going on, knew he wasn't really properly dying (just taking a rest weekend) and was having a schizophrenic discourse with himself trying to decide what the hell he'd been thinking when he was hanging around (pun intended) on the cross?

God is not spatial. So at the end of the day, the term 'being in' can only be analogous.

Ah. So God doesn't actually exist, so you can claim anything you like?

I'm not sure your statements on set theory also conclude the matter.

If you can make Set A a subset of Set B and also make Set B a subset of Set A let me know, I'll come and watch you collect your Fields Medal.

In as much as some of the Father can be in son and visa versa, in an indivisible all of the Father is in the son and all of the son is in the father and therefore they are one.but that can only be analogous. So whether all that can be extended to physical parts which have their own independent existence I'm not sure.

I see, so 'parts' of this indivisible (because it's 'necessary' and therefore not a composite) thing are within another part of the indivisible single thing that has no components? You are tying yourself in knots trying to justify an obvious contradiction. It makes no sense, no matter how you try to parse it, it's riddled with mutually exclusive claims which only persist because there's nothing there to actually test or examine to see if one or the other is correct.

O.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I'm sorry but the problems with opposition to my posts.
On your part include,
The circularity of Empiricism, physicalism, naturalism,

With the exception if physicalism (that no-one here subscribes to), there is no such circularity. I’ve schooled you on this many times before now without rebuttal so I can only conclude that you’re just lying about it now.

Fallacy of modernity,…

And your example of me doing that would be what? Oh wait, you don’t have one do you.
 

… the supposed existence of physical infinities,…

Not a claim I’ve made. You failure to grasp the burden of proof is letting you down again here.
 

…unaccounted contingency,…

Nope, no idea…

… circular hierarchies of being,…

Don’t forget the Hexagons of Lightning while you’re in full gibberish mode…

… misuse of fallacy of composition,…

There is no misuse - so far at least, it’s all you have to justify your “necessary being” assertion.

…composite necessary beings,…

You’ve yet to explain why a universe that consists of components must also therefore be caused by something other than itself - you know, one of the various problems you always run away from.

…and your claims that arguments concerning morality and epistemology had been debunked in favour of you when a search reveals that not to be the case,…

They have been, many times - only for you to ignore, lie about or straw man the rebuttals when they’re given to you. I even offered to do it again recently provided in exchange you agreed (finally) to engage honestly when I did it, but you ran away from that offer too remember?

…your ideas on emergence,…

They’re not my ideas, and you’ve always got the principles of emergence arse-backwards when you’ve blundered into that area too. 

Your acceptance of simulated universe theory.

Except there is no such acceptance.

So, now you’ve spat the dummy with your standard rosta of lies, evasions, straw men etc did you have anything to say about why in your opinion the universe must be caused by something other than itself? 

Something?

Anything?

No?...

...Thought not.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Interesting notion of yours, care to discuss it and perhaps actually justify it some time?

You might think grovelling self-abasement and the abandonment of personal responsibility to an imaginary sky fairy reflects well on you, but I don’t.

[jeremyp]

Not moving the goalpost Jeremy

Yes you are. You were talking about composites before, now you are talking about physical composites.

because I have said before that God is spirit

So what? That doesn't mean God is not a composite entity.

I have never been talking about a composite, mixture, reaction between the human and divine to form a compound or composition in the physical sense.

Neither have I, at least, not solely.

Jesus' humanity is not God.. It is not then, the prime mover, first cause or ground of being of theology.

Jesus isn't God. Fine. That still leaves the Father and the Holy Spirit as entities within God.

I disagree that this defies logic. It defies physicalism.

You'd disagree that black and white are different if it went against your religion. What you agree and disagree with is of no importance in determining if some argument is sound or not.

[jeremyp]

You must have been absent when I said I cannot prove God.

What is all this contingency prime mover nonsense for then?