Dropping a dime on W.L. Craig

[Arising_uk]

Again upon a philosophy forum!!

...
To use logic and natural law to disprove and debunk such a supernatural entity, we would first have to establish that the rules of logic and natural law are binding on everything in all reality, including any gods within. Or, we would at least have to establish that such rules are binding on gods. That is, we would have to somehow prove that there is nothing supernatural. ...

Once again you prove your ignorance of the one subject that Philosophy can call its own and also demonstrate that you do not understand the difference between logical and empirical and how they relate, let me enlighten you.

Its not the rules of logic and natural law that all have to obey, its the rules of logic that anything that exists has to obey. Why? Because if there are things or states of affairs, i.e. existence then Logic arises from them, its an inescapable brute fact that applies to anything that exists. In Logic there are tautologies, contradictions and contingencies, tautologies say what is necessary, contradictions what is impossible and the contingencies what is possible. Tautologies are always true regardless of the things or states of affairs(other than there just being such things), contradictions are always false regardless of the things or states of affairs, and the contingencies are true or false depending upon whether the state of affairs or things actually hold, i.e. they are empirical, this is where the natural laws live. As such, if a 'God' exists then 'it' cannot exist and not exist as this is a logical contradiction, this rule of Logic holds for anything anywhere in the Universe, needs no sampling to be true and is binding upon any 'Gods' that exist. Please stop spouting your nonsense about Logic upon this forum as whilst I can just about cope with the fact that you've never read those we call the philosophers, that your epistemology is flawed, that you are a closet theist and you don't subscribe to the PN mag, I find it an affront to Philosophy when you speak such bollocks about Logic from a position of sheer ignorance about the subject.

[Greylorn Ell]

Again upon a philosophy forum!!

...
To use logic and natural law to disprove and debunk such a supernatural entity, we would first have to establish that the rules of logic and natural law are binding on everything in all reality, including any gods within. Or, we would at least have to establish that such rules are binding on gods. That is, we would have to somehow prove that there is nothing supernatural. ...

Once again you prove your ignorance of the one subject that Philosophy can call its own and also demonstrate that you do not understand the difference between logical and empirical and how they relate, let me enlighten you.

Its not the rules of logic and natural law that all have to obey, its the rules of logic that anything that exists has to obey. Why? Because if there are things or states of affairs, i.e. existence then Logic arises from them, its an inescapable brute fact that applies to anything that exists. In Logic there are tautologies, contradictions and contingencies, tautologies say what is necessary, contradictions what is impossible and the contingencies what is possible. Tautologies are always true regardless of the things or states of affairs(other than there just being such things), contradictions are always false regardless of the things or states of affairs, and the contingencies are true or false depending upon whether the state of affairs or things actually hold, i.e. they are empirical, this is where the natural laws live. As such, if a 'God' exists then 'it' cannot exist and not exist as this is a logical contradiction, this rule of Logic holds for anything anywhere in the Universe, needs no sampling to be true and is binding upon any 'Gods' that exist. Please stop spouting your nonsense about Logic upon this forum as whilst I can just about cope with the fact that you've never read those we call the philosophers, that your epistemology is flawed, that you are a closet theist and you don't subscribe to the PN mag, I find it an affront to Philosophy when you speak such bollocks about Logic from a position of sheer ignorance about the subject.

While I'm naturally delighted to find another apparent anti-Felasco ally, I'd be even happier if you applied your insights to the OP, ignoring the distraction.

Felasco, after all, is just one of the trolls that threads attract. After building a little bridge over a gentle creek flowing through the woods, trolls will gather beneath, waiting for hapless travelers to stop alongside the road and picnic by the bridge, figuring on jumping up while the visitors are enjoying their lunch and the scenery, grimacing fiercely and making annoying noises, hoping to frighten the visitors away. Why? Just to steal their lunch.

The only remedy for trolls is ignorance. They attempt to perpetuate ignorance by way of gaining attention. Yet, if you ignore them they will go away. They cannot eat from your picnic basket unless you explain how to open ziploc bags, then put the meat, cheese and lettuce between bread slices. They cannot drink your wine unless you demonstrate how to use a corkscrew and then explain why this is a better plan than simply breaking the bottle on some rocks. If you explain this stuff to the trolls, you will be empowering them. They will continue their trollish ways, infesting and mucking up what might have been a pleasant picnic spot.

And I take responsibility for encouraging this particular troll. Felasco is a clever and sneaky troll, first appearing in common tourist garb after a recent shower, inviting conversation, and only showing its greenish teeth and malodorous excretions after I'd made the dreadful mistake of inviting it for lunch. Stupid of me for expecting intelligence, but I'm new to PNow.

So, kindly help me test my theory, that Felasco is a just a troll, a kind of thought-vampire who feeds upon attention, thrives on negative attention like an ornery 3-year old, but will fade away if ignored.

[attofishpi]

Atto,

Kindly accept my apology for my last post to you. It was unkind and thoughtless.

I mean to accept honest questions and ideas, but was not doing that last night.

Greylorn

Hey thats totally accepted.

I'm being a total ass in the Metaphysics thread anyway. I wasn't planning on posting on this forum again, but i still like to check in every now and then and was really surprised when i saw my thread back.
I was actually toward the tail end of a bottle of J & B and decided to post without any consideration other than having you digest some of my ''weird'' shit, just in the off chance you might comprehend with your rational mind something i've been banging on about for quite some time.
Anyway, i'll get that thread re-posted\edited soon to something more palatable!!
Cheers.

Atto,

My reply was lubricated by E & J brandy. Perfect timing! I'll show up on the metaphysics thread later, after getting my day job under control.

Damn those pesky bill paying schemes!!

[Felasco]

Felasco, after all, is just one of the trolls that threads attract. After building a little bridge over a gentle creek flowing through the woods, trolls will gather beneath, waiting for hapless travelers to stop alongside the road and picnic by the bridge, figuring on jumping up while the visitors are enjoying their lunch and the scenery, grimacing fiercely and making annoying noises, hoping to frighten the visitors away. Why? Just to steal their lunch.

Characterizing a challenge and challenger you are unable to defeat with reason.

This is a very common dodge and weave tactic used on forums Greylorn, and I doubt few here will be fooled by it. If one can not prevail in the realm of reason, try to move the contest to the realm of emotion, and hope for better luck there. If one can't defeat a post, try changing the topic to the poster. Pretty ordinary stuff that we've all seen a million and one times.

You aren't even following your own advice of ignoring Felasco and sticking to the subject of the thread, but instead have changed the subject to Felasco yourself. Is this the kind of brilliant razor sharp laser logic stuff they taught you in NASA physics school? Probably not. You can do better.

You're pissed because you were hoping to use your physics and math experience to make a big splash in a religion forum, and had the bad luck of immediately running in to somebody who pulled the rug out from under your operation before you had a chance to get rolling. It's just an ego boo-boo, we've all been there and done that and survived, and you will too.

So how about coming out from hiding, and getting back in the saddle on the actual topic?

[Felasco]

I disagree. The "supernatural" label does not make religions interesting, it makes them stupid.

Yes, I think we understand this is your position. It is of course a perspective shared by a great many people. It may even turn out to be correct, who knows.

It is not however a position reached via reason, but a position reached via faith.

I have no complaint with faith based positions myself, assuming of course they don't lead to violence etc. I do have a problem with labeling a faith based position as being a product of reason.

If you cannot agree upon the usefulness of good science, common sense and mathematical logic, consider posting on the Catholic Answers Forum, where you will be among like-minded (using the "minded" word loosely) souls.

It might interest you to know that I was banned from Catholic Answer in only three days, on two different occasions.

If you would like to put your superior reasoning ability on display, please explain to us how you can know what doesn't exist in an arena (all of reality) that nobody including you can define in even the most basic manner.

You will find that this emotional posturing you're doing now will get you nowhere. I will simply methodically and patiently rip each line of your posts to shreds until you vanish, or get back in the business of saying something interesting and intelligent, which we know you are capable of doing.

You presumably came to a philosophy forum seeking an intellectual challenge. You've found one. Let's get on with it.

[Arising_uk]

While I'm naturally delighted to find another apparent anti-Felasco ally, I'd be even happier if you applied your insights to the OP, ignoring the distraction.

Fair enough.

Personally I'm confused about what a troll could be upon a philosophy forum and don't actually think Felasco is or thinks himself one.

He fancies himself a bit of an intellectual and some kind of superior philosophical debunker of both the religious and the atheist. He has a couple of pet ideas that he uses all the time and pretty much ignores any questioning of them or replies about them. One involves the idea that since we don't know everything then we can know nothing, another is that Logic is a human construct so is limited and need not apply to all of existence, another is that theres an unknown part of the universe so its possible that the natural laws may not apply there, another is that science is actually faith-based and the same thing as religion, another is that there is a 'super-nature' and this applies to 'God' and if things get a bit sticky for him he trots out a psychological one and attempts to tar his interlocutor as being over-emotionally driven. Oh! And he thinks theres a 'religion' called Scientism out there.

Now I have some sympathy with tiny, weeny bits of what he says but on the whole, because he's pretty much not read any Philosophy, most of what he says is nonsense but he's a man on an interweeb mission so thinking about his thoughts philosophically is not what he's about. So maybe troll but I thought trolls didn't actually care about what they say and I think he actually does.

For myself, I will pretty much always reply when someone talks absolute bollocks about the subjects of Philosophy as I find it untenable that it remain uncorrected upon a philosophy forum. I have little hope that such as he would actually consider or understand what is being said but others may be reading their guff and think it true about the philosophical subject under discussion.

Still, I'll try to honour your request in your thread.
p.s.
I do think that maybe this thread should have been appended to the discussion about Craigs article in the Articles from PN section.

[Arising_uk]

...
I have developed a theistic theory which ignores the standards you've set in the above paragraph, but it is not your grand-dad's theism. I do not make sweeping assertions. I make only three very small assertions, all of which are supported by logic, reason, and physics. Each assertion is absolutely simple, and each is empirically verifiable. I am careful about definitions, and do not hypothesize the existence of things that cannot be verified, or locally detected. ...

I'm interested, you going to or have made a post on this?

[Greylorn Ell]

While I'm naturally delighted to find another apparent anti-Felasco ally, I'd be even happier if you applied your insights to the OP, ignoring the distraction.

Fair enough.

Personally I'm confused about what a troll could be upon a philosophy forum and don't actually think Felasco is or thinks himself one.

He fancies himself a bit of an intellectual and some kind of superior philosophical debunker of both the religious and the atheist. He has a couple of pet ideas that he uses all the time and pretty much ignores any questioning of them or replies about them. One involves the idea that since we don't know everything then we can know nothing, another is that Logic is a human construct so is limited and need not apply to all of existence, another is that theres an unknown part of the universe so its possible that the natural laws may not apply there, another is that science is actually faith-based and the same thing as religion, another is that there is a 'super-nature' and this applies to 'God' and if things get a bit sticky for him he trots out a psychological one and attempts to tar his interlocutor as being over-emotionally driven. Oh! And he thinks theres a 'religion' called Scientism out there.

Now I have some sympathy with tiny, weeny bits of what he says but on the whole, because he's pretty much not read any Philosophy, most of what he says is nonsense but he's a man on an interweeb mission so thinking about his thoughts philosophically is not what he's about. So maybe troll but I thought trolls didn't actually care about what they say and I think he actually does.

For myself, I will pretty much always reply when someone talks absolute bollocks about the subjects of Philosophy as I find it untenable that it remain uncorrected upon a philosophy forum. I have little hope that such as he would actually consider or understand what is being said but others may be reading their guff and think it true about the philosophical subject under discussion.

Still, I'll try to honour your request in your thread.
p.s.
I do think that maybe this thread should have been appended to the discussion about Craigs article in the Articles from PN section.

Ari,

Good perspectives, thank you. I see trolls as disruptors, those who will invariably argue against another's thoughts for the sake of argument, to no particular point or personal agenda. My issue with him is that he wants to run his own game and cannot settle upon a set of rules, not even for whatever game he wants to play.

I originally planned to put my complaints on Craig within the PN specific discussion section, but figured that it would be lost there.

When I opened the section I found dozens of posts that were uncategorized with respect to particular aspects of Craig's article. I read the first page of them, until my mind dulled and eyes became blurry. No particularly interesting content. I don't have the time to read all that stuff. I figure that not all too many others are interested in reading hundreds of ya-da ya-da comments. It's like chewing through ten pounds of fat and gristle to get at an ounce of good meat. That's a job for feral cats.

Anything that I posted would have ended up at the bottom of the pile. Who would read it? Only those speed-readers who had dealt with the preceding rubbish. I've found that speed-readers cannot understand any content from my book. Why expect them to comprehend anything else that I might write?

Subcategories within the "discuss" section might be helpful. So far I'm content with my choice to write outside the discussion section. A few serious individuals like yourself have responded, and only a few bottom-feeders.

I'd like to see a discussion section that was limited to PN subscribers, with the ability to create subcategories on a topic. Maybe the current discussion section is so limited, but the comment quality suggests otherwise.

[Greylorn Ell]

...
I have developed a theistic theory which ignores the standards you've set in the above paragraph, but it is not your grand-dad's theism. I do not make sweeping assertions. I make only three very small assertions, all of which are supported by logic, reason, and physics. Each assertion is absolutely simple, and each is empirically verifiable. I am careful about definitions, and do not hypothesize the existence of things that cannot be verified, or locally detected. ...

I'm interested, you going to or have made a post on this?

I wrote two books on the subject, the best one (but most difficult) being Digital Universe -- Analog Soul. There is no way to present my thesis in a post that would make sense to anyone. I've tried, on three different forums, to present ideas piecemeal, in a series of threads focused upon a single theme. This proved to be a fruitless effort. Trolls and nits descended upon each thread like flies on a picnic lunch. On two forums the moderators (atheists) simply made it impossible to produce content.

I am working on an article that neither PN nor anyone else is likely to publish, but it is a difficult process trying to condense such ideas. The human mind tends to become somnambulistic whenever it is presented with just a single concept that differs from its current programming. Imagine how minds will react when confronted with seven divergent ideas, several of which depend upon classical physics.

[Ginkgo]

I wrote two books on the subject, the best one (but most difficult) being Digital Universe -- Analog Soul. There is no way to present my thesis in a post that would make sense to anyone. I've tried, on three different forums, to present ideas piecemeal, in a series of threads focused upon a single theme. This proved to be a fruitless effort. Trolls and nits descended upon each thread like flies on a picnic lunch. On two forums the moderators (atheists) simply made it impossible to produce content.

I am working on an article that neither PN nor anyone else is likely to publish, but it is a difficult process trying to condense such ideas. The human mind tends to become somnambulistic whenever it is presented with just a single concept that differs from its current programming. Imagine how minds will react when confronted with seven divergent ideas, several of which depend upon classical physics.

Greylorn, have you thought about the possibility of a quantum universe and a quantum soul?

[Felasco]

My issue with him is that he wants to run his own game and cannot settle upon a set of rules, not even for whatever game he wants to play.

Your issue with me is that I'm out reasoning you.

I invite you to "troll me" and disrupt my little game by challenging my reasoning head on in an intellectually honest manner, subject it to the best test you can, and try to defeat it. I welcome such a challenge. Let's get on with it already.

I'd like to see a discussion section that was limited to PN subscribers

I've been making arguments of this nature for years before you arrived here. If you should pursue this line of inquiry you will quickly find Arising and the rest of the forum line up against you in somewhat hysterical manner, and Rick and the mods will ignore you. Just trying to save you some time here, you're on the right track, it's a good suggestion, but you're barking up a dead tree.

[Felasco]

I wrote two books on the subject, the best one (but most difficult) being Digital Universe -- Analog Soul. There is no way to present my thesis in a post that would make sense to anyone. I've tried, on three different forums, to present ideas piecemeal, in a series of threads focused upon a single theme. This proved to be a fruitless effort. Trolls and nits descended upon each thread like flies on a picnic lunch. On two forums the moderators (atheists) simply made it impossible to produce content.

I am working on an article that neither PN nor anyone else is likely to publish, but it is a difficult process trying to condense such ideas. The human mind tends to become somnambulistic whenever it is presented with just a single concept that differs from its current programming. Imagine how minds will react when confronted with seven divergent ideas, several of which depend upon classical physics.

Are you ever going to get around to actually saying anything, or do you plan to continue to focus your posts on bragging on yourself and calling others nitwits etc?

If you can find no way to present your thesis in a forum environment, perhaps you should drop that project and move on to something else interesting and useful that you can do here?

Any chance we might get on with it, something, anything?

[Felasco]

Personally I'm confused about what a troll could be upon a philosophy forum and don't actually think Felasco is or thinks himself one.

Thank you. I am disruptive, that's true. I can be a jerk, that is true as well. I am however sincere in my remarks.

I am attacking fantasy knowings of both the theist and atheist flavor for a specific reason, and am able to proceed beyond that should I ever find anyone capable of doing so. I enjoy impossible challenges, and trying to undermine fantasy knowings on a philosophy forum probably fits that description, thus my agenda might fairly be labeled fundamentally irrational, even if my points should prove to be completely true.

He has a couple of pet ideas that he uses all the time and pretty much ignores any questioning of them or replies about them.

I tend to ignore questioning of them from you, for the specific reason that the vast majority of your posts are mostly just expressions of your need to hit reply and react as fast as possible. You do have interesting things to say sometimes, and reasonable challenges to make, but I'm often no longer listening by the time you get around to it.

One involves the idea that since we don't know everything then we can know nothing,

This is such an imprecise rendition of my points, that you're either not really listening, not able to grasp it, or deliberately making an argument by exaggeration. As I've stated at least a million times over the years you've been reading my posts, I am happy to acknowledge the power of human reason in the great many areas, too many to list, where it has proven it is relevant and useful. Wildly speculative grandly sweeping assertions about the fundamental nature of all reality is not one of those arenas.

another is that Logic is a human construct so is limited and need not apply to all of existence,

Please define "all of existence", this realm you wish to make counter claims about. What is it's size, shape, boundaries etc?

another is that theres an unknown part of the universe so its possible that the natural laws may not apply there,

Please prove that natural laws applies to areas of reality that humans know not the first thing about.

another is that science is actually faith-based and the same thing as religion,

Sigh.... Are you starting to see why I don't often read your posts? Theological assertions based on science are faith based.

another is that there is a 'super-nature' and this applies to 'God' and if things get a bit sticky for him he trots out a psychological one and attempts to tar his interlocutor as being over-emotionally driven.

Does this have any specific meaning, or it is just a pleasing collection of random words?

Oh! And he thinks theres a 'religion' called Scientism out there.

I have never used the word Scientism.

Now I have some sympathy with tiny, weeny bits of what he says but on the whole, because he's pretty much not read any Philosophy, most of what he says is nonsense but he's a man on an interweeb mission so thinking about his thoughts philosophically is not what he's about. So maybe troll but I thought trolls didn't actually care about what they say and I think he actually does.

Having utterly failed to defeat the challenge, you proceed in the hopes of changing the subject to the challenger, where perhaps you'll have better luck.

[Arising_uk]

...
I'd like to see a discussion section that was limited to PN subscribers, with the ability to create subcategories on a topic. ...

Personally I'd like to see the whole forum only open to PN magazine subscribers to post and edit to. That way it'd be a true adjunct to the magazine.

[Arising_uk]

Thank you. I am disruptive, that's true. I can be a jerk, that is true as well. I am however sincere in my remarks. ...

Since I said to Greylorn that I would not feed what he considers a troll on his thread I'll cut/paste this and respond to it in the Lounge.