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.
I beg your pardon.
We are not talking about a word but the concept the word represents.
You have limited reality to suit your worldview, which was my original contention: Philosophical materialists are stuck in their tiny materialistic mental box. They won't look out the window, not because there is nothing out there but because it makes them uncomfortable.
Or, are you suggesting that it is impossible to have a word that means "all that exists"?
Since you are requiring that I break down your logic to show the flaws, I must assume you have had no training in logic whatsoever. If you have had training in logic, you are either ignoring its laws or have forgotten them.
Your syllogism:
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 fallacy is called Petitio Principii or "begging the question," which is assuming the thing you are trying to prove. It is the most basic of fallacies.
What you mean is that you somehow know of things that are not observable. Please explain how you then came to know them.
Evolution is almost composed exclusively of elements that are not observable! Shame beavus! Was I mistaken when I gave you credit for thinking?
Do you know of things you cannot observe? The question absolutely absurd, hypocritical, and sophomoric. Everyone knows things they cannot observe! If you want a lesson in the theory of knowlege, 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. You people are supposed to be the enlightened ones yet you mock us if our vocabulary exceeds 800 words.
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.
You can. Here's another lesson in logic for free: The burden of proof is on the new idea.
You are certainly free to assert anything but you should be able to back it up. I have given good reasons to believe why there is a reality outside of our physical universe. You can only offer the lame and trampled excuse that if you can't observe it, it doesn't exist. Any 7th-grader of average intelligence who hasn't been force-fed darwinism through the elementary grades will be able to discern which position is superior. Deny it till you turn blue, but please offer some sort of rational basis.
"Origin"? There is no origin if it has always existed.
No kidding. The burden of proof is on you to show or at least provide some logic that indicates why matter is eternal.
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.
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.
You see, beavus, your side tries to explain all the impossibilities of the Big Bang by telling us the laws of physics were different then. How convenient! That is no less intellectually cowardly than your claim that we hide behind God.
It does not wash, beavus, to say that
dirt is eternal = science
God is eternal = superstition
frog -> prince = fairy tale
frog + time -> prince = science.
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.
Besides being funny as hell, I wanted to applaud you for cutting to the heart of the matter in such a direct way.
It is my choice not to claim to know things that I cannot know.
...and again here.
If Dataman has any sense (and he's obviously not stupid), he'll sit down and ponder the deeper significance of those statements a while before he tries to resume the discussion.