Hey I think I just figured out what you are trying to ask. Do you mean to ask whether god has a form or localized aspect (as opposed some sort o f omnipresent energy that defies a description)?
If you figured it out then what are you asking me for?:shrug: I'll have to pick up this cud chew next week, I'm heading out of town again. Checking out some Olympic stuff. In the meantime .... always a pleasure.
I haven't figured out what you're asking ..... that's why I'm asking. Pity they don't have a category for theistic debate championships.
Maybe I didn't say that clearly. In order for god to exist the laws of physics must be contingent on him(since its a requirement for an omnipotent personality). As far as physics goes, there's also a good arguments for them to be required to be contingent on some singular aspect (eg unified theory, string theory, etc)
I made no accusation of you having conveyed meaning, in your use of analogies. Forget that neither potency nor source is to be assumed in the first place, when the existence of either is the very topic under discussion, and it doesn't look weird - it looks depressingly familiar. The laws of physics are thought up and written down by human beings. In the historical record, to the extent they depended on supernatural potencies they proved false.
and that my friend is precisely the problem .... if there's no assumption there is no discussion ... and yes that is depressingly familiar as far as an atheistic dialogue on theism go.... well sure ... feel free to indicate something that isn't thought up and written down by a human. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! No sure what you are looking at when you say "in the historical record" ... much less the "supernatural" ... and even less in the complete absence of any solid understanding within the field of physics on what grounds all the separate laws can be understood to be unified :shrug:
They do tend to refuse to assume the existence of diety, before beginning "dialogue", don't they. Stubbornly uncooperative, that way. No doubt a flaw of character.
Yes It suffers the same problem of (any) refutation of application and conclusion that neglects theory.
Ah, but is dialogue with a deity a possible connection? What sort of language would be involved? What is what we usually consider to be a sense of "justice", or a sense of "a language which is truth"? Surely, any dialogue is only a logical one if both parties agree or disagree that the other is "logical" - hence, logic cannot be universal, only involutional and ultimately a tautology: Logic is only logical.
sure one on its terms of course ... much like a dialogue with the president would be in a language of his terms. justice is a term very much connected with power o r more specifically, the original preceptor of laws that the parties involved are operating out of. As for a language of truth, that relates to the knowledge base of the parties involved (for instance a truthful dialogue on the intricacies of advanced physics might as well be fiction unless all parties are well grounded in a theoretical base) Much like the disagreement that might arise between a physics professor and a high school drop out may lead to a stalemate ... but that doesn't necessarily mean the claims of the professor have no footing since the other party refuses to entertain them. (IOW a schism on the field of logic says nothing about the premises that frame it) IOW the question "is it logical for god to exist?" is probably better examined by looking at the question "Is it logical for persons of a particular knowledge base (like say an atheist) to be capable of applying themselves to the means that renders god knowable?"
Sure it is. For instance the set of instructions that come with a kiddy lab set certainly yield results of knowledge when invested with an element of faith.
I'ts not only a knowledge base, but also a theory base. In fact, correct faith in god is the knowledge and theory base, without which profoundly meaningful discussion of the omnipresent energy potencies which establish the material energy field premises of logic and reason will sound like so much gibberish.
never encountered a normative description in scripture? well yeah sure, step outside the normative descriptions of any discipline you can think of and it all starts to look weird. :shrug:
Not nearly as weird as being put inside a description of a discipline in the first place. For a while there the omnipresent original preceptor potencies were hard to distinguish from the schisms in the energy material field logic. Takes a few minutes to get your bearings - but I think I'll be OK from here on out. The wordsalad shooter has just been primed with "holistic template", to give "normative description" a break if it gets tired, and there's "conventional paradigm" as a last resort - the old-school malarky can still work its sleight of phrase, get the catbread buttered on both sides.
So physics graduates who major in janitorial service strikes you as tenable? I don't know why you experienced that difficulty If it appears repetitive its simply because standard arguments warrant standard rebuttals :shrug:
Maybe it was because I had failed to clarify the import of the difference between an energy material field and a material energy field. The schisms in the potency's normative descriptions are preceptively omnipresent in completely different ways, and I missed them. Rebuttals? Where?
well it wouldn't be the first time you've tried to lodge an argument in such a manner. Why the one you've been sarcastically parodying for the past 6 or so posts now .....
Those aren't parodies. They're as much rebuttals of anything as their models. Do you actually think you've been making meaningful statements?
