Replies

Seems rather presumptuous.

And yet 100% correct!

Does being ‘enlightened’ make you an omnipresent, omnipotent, all knowing being that reads minds?

No, it literally means "seen the light." I.e. knows the truth.

Is that like an inside out mobius strip?

Pretty much exactly, which is also a great description of your position to date.

You have committed the logical fallacy of asserting the non-existence of something.

Sorry, but there is no such logical fallacy. While proving the non-existence of something might be an issue, knowing that some things don't exist is quite easy and, in most cases, very logical.

Why don't you give the naturalistic conclusion of the process by which the laws of physics must have come into existence.

Because no such conclusion has been drawn yet. But you knew that.

The part that you aren't getting (and never will) is that we will have an answer for that someday, assuming we don't make ourselves extinct, because the answer is actually out there waiting to be discovered.

We have theories for how this may have happened and various experiments and observations that we are or can conduct to validate aspects of those theories.

In short, as we learn more we get closer to answering those very questions.

Contrast that with the fact that as we learn more the concepts of religion become that much more ridiculous.

Hundreds of years ago you and your ilk insisted that the earth was the center of the universe.

Stupid questions and assertions, just like yours above, were put forth by the faithful to challenge the learned when they were able to prove otherwise.

In the end the faithful looked foolish for their unsubstantiated beliefs while the educated went forth to improve the world.

And they didn't fall off the edge as your type insisted they would.

That pattern appears to be one of the naturalistic laws of the universe. The stupid rely on faith while the intelligent seek proof.

Guess which ones advance the species?

Does being ‘enlightened’ make you an omnipresent, omnipotent, all knowing being that reads minds?
“No, it literally means "seen the light." I.e. knows the truth.” [excerpt]

Except you are claiming to have knowledge that you could only have if you were an omnipresent, omnipotent, all knowing being that reads minds.

“Which has nothing to do with nothing in this case.” [excerpt, bold emphasis mine]
Is that like an inside out mobius strip?
“Pretty much exactly, which is also a great description of your position to date.” [excerpt]

Hey, your the one who used a double negative.

Interestingly, it is your position that we have been discussing.

Perhaps you are projecting a bit?

You have committed the logical fallacy of asserting the non-existence of something.
“Sorry, but there is no such logical fallacy. While proving the non-existence of something might be an issue, knowing that some things don't exist is quite easy and, in most cases, very logical.” [excerpt]

So, its not a logical fallacy for me to assert that you don't exist, but trying to prove you don't exist might be an issue?

But hey, I say you don't exist and I just looked around the room and didn't find you, so I just proved that you don't exist.

Seriously, I'm starting to think you know nothing about logic.

Why don't you give the naturalistic conclusion of the process by which the laws of physics must have come into existence.
“Because no such conclusion has been drawn yet. But you knew that.

The part that you aren't getting (and never will) is that we will have an answer for that someday, assuming we don't make ourselves extinct, because the answer is actually out there waiting to be discovered.” [excerpt]

Well, using your style of logic, the answer does not exist.

You, nor anyone, will ever find it.

You will never understand why.

“Contrast that with the fact that as we learn more the concepts of religion become that much more ridiculous.” [excerpt]

Do you think that scientists should try to eliminate religion?

“Hundreds of years ago you and your ilk insisted that the earth was the center of the universe.” [excerpt]

Prove that its not in the center 1% of the entire universe.

“Stupid questions and assertions, just like yours above, were put forth by the faithful to challenge the learned when they were able to prove otherwise.” [excerpt]

Are you saying that religious people are stupid and unlearned?

“In the end the faithful looked foolish for their unsubstantiated beliefs while the educated went forth to improve the world.” [excerpt]

By educated do you mean people who reject God and subscribe to philosophical naturalism?

“And they didn't fall off the edge as your type insisted they would.” [excerpt]

Exactly what is my type?

“That pattern appears to be one of the naturalistic laws of the universe. The stupid rely on faith while the intelligent seek proof.” [excerpt]

Interestingly, many, if not most, of your arguments have been arguments of faith and are far from testable. (or falsifiable)

The fact is, an origin of the laws of physics is by definition a super-natural origin that was not governed by the natural laws of physics because at the point when the aforementioned laws came into existence, there were no natural laws of physics in which a naturalistic process capable of creating the natural laws of physics could have operated.

Kinda like you.

No action you took caused you to come into existence.

None.

To suggest otherwise is patently absurd.