Then you have created reality by definition. That is fine for your own universe but reality itself exists apart from the will of man.
You have demonstrated well the bias of the materialist. The materialist lives in a room and refuses to look out the window. It is not that there is no evidence for a reality beyond the universe, it is not that the laws of logic are violated, it is a simple refusal to believe. The argument that can persuade a brittle materialist does not exist because he refuses to consider anything that does not conform to his comfortable self-centered reality.
That, of course, is your choice. But that choice robs you of the ability to point the finger at creationists and accuse them of intellectual stubbornness; it is hypocrisy. It also causes your "scientific" air of superiority to evaporate; you aren't interested in truth, only the support of your baseless suppositions.
Finally, it exposes the defenders of darwin to be volitional rather than thoughtful; dishonest rather than truthful; unscientific rather than scientific, biased rather than fair.
It means you lost the argument.
If the big bang theory is true, then matter has existed for all time.
Of course matter has existed for all time. Who would argue against that? Both views believe time began with the beginning of the universe. It is the origin of matter that you cannot (will not?) explain.
This is rediculous, and disappointing. I have done nothing but define a word. I could just as well have created a new word called, say "poutriverse" and defined "poutriverse" = "all that exists". Fortunately a word already exists, it is called "universe".
Or, are you suggesting that it is impossible to have a word that means "all that exists"?
It is not that there is no evidence for a reality beyond the universe, it is not that the laws of logic are violated, it is a simple refusal to believe. The argument that can persuade a brittle materialist does not exist because he refuses to consider anything that does not conform to his comfortable self-centered reality.
What is disappointing is that my previous post was so meticulously clear. Perhaps you didn't read it. If you don't want to except the definition of "universe" I gave then simply say so.
However, in light of your incapacity to manage word definitions, let me simply say that all you are doing by using words like "reality beyond the universe" is saying that there are properties or qualities of the universe that are different than those we observe.
he refuses to consider anything that does not conform to his comfortable self-centered reality
What you mean is that you somehow know of things that are not observable. Please explain how you then came to know them. Explain why I can't with equal legitimacy claim that there is a 2D realm of Mandarin-speaking Elvis's flying upside down on winged donkeys.
That, of course, is your choice.
It is my choice not to claim to know things that I cannot know.
It is the origin of matter that you cannot (will not?) explain.
"Origin"? There is no origin if it has always existed. And I thought you were beyond the contradiction of a time before time.
You don't realize that you believe in an infinite universe containing unobservable properties that are incomprehensibly different from those properties we do observe, and yet are knowable.
What "window" would that be? Are you asserting that there's some "window" we can look out of and see God? If you know of the location of this window, like the secret passage in "Being John Malkovich", perhaps you should share it.
And if not, stop chiding people for "refusing" to look out of an imaginary window where you believe God would be found hiding if we all joined hands and imagined looking out the same window together.
It is not that there is no evidence for a reality beyond the universe, it is not that the laws of logic are violated, it is a simple refusal to believe.
Ah, "believe". So it comes back to Faith once again. You should just come right out and say so.
And you're suffering from a misconception when you presume that lack of belief can be due to a "refusal to believe". Belief is not something we can consciously choose to do or not do. Can you choose to regain belief in Santa Claus? Can you choose to stop believing in death just because it would be more comforting to deny it will someday come to you? Try it and see.
I never "refuse to believe" -- I wouldn't know how. Do you?
I used to believe in your sort of god. Then eventually, through no volitional choice of my own, I stopped believing in it, for exactly the same reason I can't believe in Hank. I simply couldn't maintain a belief in something so patently unbelievable and circular, no matter how much I "wanted" to believe it for its obvious comforts, and how much peer pressure there was to maintain it.
Belief is not something you choose. It comes or leaves unbidden, like love. Or gets involuntarily rejected like a badly matched kidney transplant.
"Materialism", as you so dismissively (and inadequately) call it, isn't what made me "refuse to believe" -- it was what was still left after my brain ejected the foreign body of deism.
Not quite as simplistic as your "I've got it all figured out" presumption, sorry.
The argument that can persuade a brittle materialist does not exist because he refuses to consider anything that does not conform to his comfortable self-centered reality.
Nonsense. For example, show me something supernatural and I'll easily be persuaded. Got any? If not, maybe that "comfortable self-centered reality" isn't such an unreasonable position after all.
Maybe you're just expressing your own inability to come up with any actual evidence or sufficiently persuasive argument for your "imagine a window with me" worldview.
That, of course, is your choice.
Why thank you.
But that choice robs you of the ability to point the finger at creationists and accuse them of intellectual stubbornness; it is hypocrisy.
BAHAHAHAHAHA! Thanks, this thread needed a good knee-slapper.
It also causes your "scientific" air of superiority to evaporate; you aren't interested in truth, only the support of your baseless suppositions.
You have not proven your case, and in fact there are many counterexamples.
But if your idea of "truth" is to assert that there are invisible windows we should be believing in, then don't be surprised when you don't find many takers among the "show me" crowd.
Finally, it exposes the defenders of darwin to be volitional rather than thoughtful; dishonest rather than truthful; unscientific rather than scientific, biased rather than fair. It means you lost the argument.
Don't mistake your premise for your conclusion, or your frustrations for reality.
And don't be so arrogant as to declare such a premature victory.
"You refuse to see the light!""What light?"
"The light of Truth!"
"Um, okay, where?"
"It's there if you just look!"
"Look *where*?"
"All around! It shines from the world around us if you but open your eyes!"
"Um... You sure?"
"Yes! *I* see it, why can't you?!"
"Don't be afraid of the guys in the white coats, they're here to help."
"You fools! Can't you see that you're just choosing to be blind? That you're stubborn and unscientific and dishonest?"
"For not buying your 'trust me on this light thing' proposition?"
"Yes!"
"You've *got* to be kidding..."
"Ha! You've lost the argument!"
"Wasn't much of an argument..."
Fallacy of Equivocation.There is 'no evidence' for a 'reality' beyond the universe 'reality.' Reality and the 'refusal to believe' are separate things. These statements say that there is evidence for something beyond reality that is contained within reality, which means it is part of reality. The laws of logic are violated by these statements.
The argument that can persuade a brittle materialist does not exist because he refuses to consider anything that does not conform to his comfortable self-centered reality.
As ugly as an Ad Hominem attack as I've ever seen. No content at all, just pure invective. (brittle, comfortable, 'self centered' {you make Ayn proud on that one})
Finally, it exposes the defenders of darwin to be volitional rather than thoughtful; dishonest rather than truthful; unscientific rather than scientific, biased rather than fair.
Whose Darwin? More Ad Hominem nonsense with no content. The fact is that evols are only dependent upon observations of reality, however in error those may be. Creationists must depend upon Begged Questions, Smuggled Premises and Assertions Without Proof before they can even put forth a theory.
It is the origin of matter that you cannot (will not?) explain.
What's the matter here is that there is no matter. Matter is an illusion, there is only energy. E=MC2. And energy has existed always, has always been traveling from one place to another, will always travel from one place to another.
There is only the Light, there has only ever been The Light and there will only ever be The Light.