PROVE that there is something out there before you make this lame Ad Hominem claim. Who appointed you judge over this man to call him 'Materialist?' Thy Beam makes thee Blind. And how do you know what makes him 'uncomfortable?'
Maybe it is just an honest search for truth based upon facts. Who are you to assert otherwise?
Major premise:
The universe is all that there is.
Minor premise: If something were outside the universe it could not be part of the universe.
Conclusion: Therefore something outside the universe cannot exist.
This isn't what he said, and this isn't Begging the Question. This could be termed Excluded Middle Term, Affirming the Consequent and a bunch of other stuff but this is all bull.
Properly structured this would be:
If there were something outside the Universe it could not exist.
There is something outside the Universe,
Therefore, there is something outside the Universe that cannot exist.
Your syllogism contains no common terms so you demonstrate that you don't understand logic well enough not to make the most basic fallacious errors.
I charge $105 an hour.
It is amazing to me that I so often have to give the high-brow evolutionists lessons in elementary logic.
Seems you overcharge.
The burden of proof is on the new idea.
ok darkshadow, I finally found it. Have you met Donh? He holds there is no 'Burden of Proof' just a 'Burden of Best Guess'. Maybe you should argue with him. But he's just a Creationist in disguise. And I digress.
Burden of Proof means you must have some evidence before anyone can take your claim seriously. You have no evidence for yours, near as I can tell.
I have given good reasons to believe why there is a reality outside of our physical universe.
BY DEFINITION, not possible.
The burden of proof is on you to show or at least provide some logic that indicates why matter is eternal.
Why? Because you say so? Matter exists now, that is all you know. That is all you can ever know, try though you might. Prove that it isn't eternal (!) prove that it came from God. None of it can be 'proved.'
Of course I understand the argument I put forth. I admit some of the properties are unobservable. Most of evolution's claims are unobservable. If the unobservable element makes it impossible, then evolution is impossible as well. The properties are not incomprehensibly different.
'Unobservable' and without evidence are entirely two different things. I cannot 'observe' radiation but the evidence of its existence will kill me, as it did Madame Curie. I cannot 'observe' any 'evidence' that justifies Creationism. There is none. None. If one starts with just what one observes about the Universe, and never hears of the Bible, one will never, ever, ever, ever, reach the conclusion that Jesus Died on the Cross for Your Sins. Never. Ever.
Given only the evidence of the natural world one could arrive at evolution. The problem that Creationists now have is the question:
Why did God put so many fossils in the world to make it appear that evolution is true? Either God is very cruel in His judgments or He has a very weird sense of humor.
all i have time for today
Another example of petitio principii. The conclusion is included in the first term.
Like I said, change your screen name or change your ways. It might be easier to change your ways.
For a guy who habitually claims ad hominem! there sure were a lot of personal digs in your last post.
But, as you say, "all i have time for today."