[DonQuichotte (OP)]

dlorde , Cheryl :

Time up, sorry :

Try to read carefully what i say , once again :

I said science will be able to expand its realm ...when science will be liberated from materialism , not earlier : the materialist current 'scientific world view " would , per definition, only dismiss non-material non-physical non-biological processes , or would just reduce them to material physical biological ones : major examples ? : consciousness , human intellect , the immaterial side of life , the nature of feelings emotions ......the nature of human love ...

So, i talk about what science actually is  and therefore should be , without materialism thus ...when science will cease thus to reduce the whole reality to just physics and chemistry ,once again .

That's probably the lamest dodge I've seen so far.

I don't see why all of science must be liberated from materialism first, in order for you to even describe what a liberated scientist might then be free to do, or do differently. After all, it only takes one scientist with one really important discovery to change history. That one scientist doesn't have to get everybody's permission first to think differently. The idea that time wasn't constant must have been radical in 1905 and didn't require a consensus from all of science or society.

[/quote]

Science must be liberated from mainstream materialism, for the simple reason that the latter is false , materialism that's been taken for granted as the 'scientific world view " .
IT is obvously not enough to have some scientists individuals who do challenge that 'scientific world view ": there is a lot more needed to do just that than just some scientists who have been "singing outside of the mainsteram materialist false orchestra" .

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

... you just resort to attacking non-materialist world views such as religions..

You have so little in response you have to make things up?  Or can you quote me 'attacking' non-materialist world views such as religions?

You just resort to saying : my materialist belief is better than yours = what kindda silly childish 'reasoning " is this then ? Amazing .

Confabulation. Care to quote me saying any such thing?

[/quote]

Try to reread what you said earlier then, i did repost for you   here above .

[dlorde]

Try to reread what you said earlier then, i did repost for you   here above .

You won't find quotes of me attacking non-materialist world views such as religions, or saying that my materialist belief is better than yours, because they're not there.

You've clearly interpreted something I've posted as an attack on non-materialist world views, and as suggesting that I think my 'materialist belief' is better than yours, so perhaps you could quote the relevant post(s) so I can explain what I said in words of one syllable.

[dlorde]

Science must be liberated from mainstream materialism, for the simple reason that the latter is false , materialism that's been taken for granted as the 'scientific world view " .
IT is obvously not enough to have some scientists individuals who do challenge that 'scientific world view ": there is a lot more needed to do just that than just some scientists who have been "singing outside of the mainsteram materialist false orchestra" .

So are you going to explain what should science be doing differently? how will it be different when 'liberated from materialism'?

[David Cooper]

God's existence can neither be proved nor disproved ; thousands of years of ancient philosophy , scholastics , modern philosophy ...should have convinced you already of that fact : trying to prove or disprove the existence of God was just a stupid and silly ancient Greek cultural habit that was taken over by christian scholastics , and by modern philosophy ,later on ...

God's existence has been disproved. The fact that so many people lack the wit to recognise that fact that he is logically impossible does not negate the fact that he has been disproved, and that he has been disproved by more than one method. These proofs do depend of course on reason being correct - they are rational proofs. God only remains a possibility if you approach it from an irrational standpoint. What is completely wrong though is to claim that God cannot be disproved within the bounds of rationality, because he has been.

Here's another way of proving that he doesn't exist. God did not create the powers by which he creates things, so he is not the creator of all things. Again this means that he fails to qualify as God.

To maintain the belief that God is possible you have to match it with a belief that reason may not be worth anything, at which point you're left floundering in a place where any argument you make is of no value at all. It is a position for people who have given up trying to understand.

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

Try to reread what you said earlier then, i did repost for you   here above .

You won't find quotes of me attacking non-materialist world views such as religions, or saying that my materialist belief is better than yours, because they're not there.

You've clearly interpreted something I've posted as an attack on non-materialist world views, and as suggesting that I think my 'materialist belief' is better than yours, so perhaps you could quote the relevant post(s) so I can explain what I said in words of one syllable.

[/quote]

You did not say that explicitly , i just rephrased or reformulated your words on the subject , i did not misinterpret them : reread what you said then .
It's ok to attack religions , aliens , God even , if you want to or can do just that , that's not the point : and that's not the subject of our discussion either .
The point is : i asked you to deliver  some  "extraordinary evidence for the extraordinary claims of materialism regarding the materialist version of reality, the latter that's been taken for granted as the alleged scientific world view  " : but , instead of doing just that , you changed the subject by talking about God and religions in ways i did try to refute .........while religions and God are not our subject of discussion here .

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

God's existence can neither be proved nor disproved ; thousands of years of ancient philosophy , scholastics , modern philosophy ...should have convinced you already of that fact : trying to prove or disprove the existence of God was just a stupid and silly ancient Greek cultural habit that was taken over by christian scholastics , and by modern philosophy ,later on ...

God's existence has been disproved. The fact that so many people lack the wit to recognise that fact that he is logically impossible does not negate the fact that he has been disproved, and that he has been disproved by more than one method. These proofs do depend of course on reason being correct - they are rational proofs. God only remains a possibility if you approach it from an irrational standpoint. What is completely wrong though is to claim that God cannot be disproved within the bounds of rationality, because he has been.

Here's another way of proving that he doesn't exist. God did not create the powers by which he creates things, so he is not the creator of all things. Again this means that he fails to qualify as God.

To maintain the belief that God is possible you have to match it with a belief that reason may not be worth anything, at which point you're left floundering in a place where any argument you make is of no value at all. It is a position for people who have given up trying to understand.
[/quote

]

haha
Depends largely of which world view do you hold or believe in : has nothing to do with reason, science , logic....what you have been saying at least .
Even though God is not our present discussion, the following :
"God's existence has been disproved ? " by whom , by what when how where ?
Congratulations : you are such an unique genius that you have just solved this unsolved mystery even thousands of years of ancient philosophy , cholastics , modern philosophy , could not solve , obviously = God's existence can , obviously , neither be proved nor disproved : trying to either prove or disprove the existence of God was , once again , just an ancient Greek silly stupid cultural habit sport that was taken over by scholastics , and by modern philosophy , later on, in vain .
Even the modern analytical philosophy had already abandoned that 'search " ,for obvious reasons .

Well, when one would consider the current mainstream materialist false conception of nature to be the 'scientific world view ", one can therefore only logically and 'empirically " haha conclude that God does ...not exist, as a result  .
But , reality as a whole , once again , is not just material or physical = materialism in science is false = the materialist "scientific world view " is false = God is obviously and per -definition outside of both science's realm and outside of science's jurisdiction as well .
Sweet dreams then  in your materialist mechanistic wonderland , Alice .


In short :

Just cut the crap  then , and answer my questions first , instead of sending the ball back to me over and over again , instead of telling me silly bed stories for kids  , then and only then , i will answer yours :
I have been asking this same core question explicitly or implicitly in one form or another for so long now , in vain : nobody , including yourself , can give an answer to : cannot be answered , simply because the materialist 'scientific world view ", or rather the materialist conception of nature is , obviously ...false :

Why do you think that reality as a whole is just material or physical then ,once again ? Why do you take it for granted as the "scientific world view " : when did science ever prove that materialist "fact ", or rather that materialist core belief assumption to be "true" that reality as a whole is just material or physical ? when ? = never , ever , obviously .
Just try to deliver your own materialist "extraordinary evidence for the extraordinary claims of materialism regarding the materialist version of reality as a whole , the materialist version of reality that's been taken for granted as the alleged scientific world view " , an alleged 'scientific world view " that is,obviously  ..false .
Deal ?

[dlorde]

You've clearly interpreted something I've posted as an attack on non-materialist world views, and as suggesting that I think my 'materialist belief' is better than yours, so perhaps you could quote the relevant post(s) so I can explain what I said in words of one syllable.

You did not say that explicitly , i just rephrased or reformulated your words on the subject , i did not misinterpret them : reread what you said then .

I'm well aware of what I said; I'm asking you to link to the post where you think I said what you claim.

It's ok to attack religions , aliens , God even , if you want to or can do just that , that's not the point : and that's not the subject of our discussion either .

I'm not interested in attacking anything.

The point is : i asked you to deliver  some  "extraordinary evidence for the extraordinary claims of materialism regarding the materialist version of reality, the latter that's been taken for granted as the alleged scientific world view  " : but , instead of doing just that , you changed the subject by talking about God and religions in ways i did try to refute .........while religions and God are not our subject of discussion here .

As I've already said, the only evidence we have is of the material. If there was evidence of the immaterial, I'd consider it. You say you don't know how the immaterial and the material could interact, but you seem convinced that they can.

I'll ask you again, what has convinced you that there is an immaterial realm that can affect the material?

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

You've clearly interpreted something I've posted as an attack on non-materialist world views, and as suggesting that I think my 'materialist belief' is better than yours, so perhaps you could quote the relevant post(s) so I can explain what I said in words of one syllable.

You did not say that explicitly , i just rephrased or reformulated your words on the subject , i did not misinterpret them : reread what you said then .

I'm well aware of what I said; I'm asking you to link to the post where you think I said what you claim.

It's ok to attack religions , aliens , God even , if you want to or can do just that , that's not the point : and that's not the subject of our discussion either .

I'm not interested in attacking anything.

The point is : i asked you to deliver  some  "extraordinary evidence for the extraordinary claims of materialism regarding the materialist version of reality, the latter that's been taken for granted as the alleged scientific world view  " : but , instead of doing just that , you changed the subject by talking about God and religions in ways i did try to refute .........while religions and God are not our subject of discussion here .

As I've already said, the only evidence we have is of the material. If there was evidence of the immaterial, I'd consider it. You say you don't know how the immaterial and the material could interact, but you seem convinced that they can.

I'll ask you again, what has convinced you that there is an immaterial realm that can affect the material?

[/quote]


You are a lousy reader , even in relation to your own posts , amazing : nevermind .
Just answer the following then : please , thanks , appreciate indeed :

... whatever quantum physics or the maths of chaos would come up regarding reality must be taken as an incomplete view of reality or rather as a distortion of reality  , simply because science has been assuming that reality is exclusively material or physical, thanks to materialism .

Reality as a whole thus is not deterministic , let alone predictable as a whole .

Supposing, for the sake of argument, there is an 'immaterial realm', what makes you so sure it's not deterministic?

To try to explain 'everyhting " just via physics and chemistry , just via the laws of physics .............is a distorted view of reality , simply because reality as a whole is not just physical or material, the latter that's obviously not "everything "  .

It may be obvious to you, but it's not obvious to me. So please enlighten me by explaining why you think it's the case.

Imagine we're lying on the beach, looking up at the clouds, and you point to a cloud and say, "Look! that one is like an elephant bathing".
I look where you're pointing and say, "I don't see it, please explain..."
You say, "It's obvious!"
I say, "I still don't see it - how is it like an elephant?" 
You explain, "The trunk is at the bottom right, but folded back to spray over its back; you can see the tail sticking up on the left there, about half way up, and the ears are flapping at the top, near that con trail..."
I say, "Oh yes... I see what you mean; although it looks more like a squirrel to me - the bit you said was the trunk looks more like the tail of a squirrel facing the other way..."
You say, "Hmmm, I see what you mean, but it's clearly an elephant"

That way, we both learn something about how other people think, which broadens our horizons, but we don't have to compromise on our individual views of the world.

There's room for further discussion in this scenario. But at present, the needle is stuck;

I'm saying, "Please explain how it's an elephant - I still don't see it"
And you're saying, "It's obviously an elephant! your silly belief that clouds are just water droplets is stopping you seeing the elephant!"
I'm saying, "Please explain how it's an elephant - I still don't see it"
Rinse & repeat.

Do you see what I'm trying to say?

I know clouds can resemble the shapes of things - I see them myself, and I can usually see the shapes other people point out; but you're just jabbing your finger at the sky, telling me it's not just water droplets, it also looks like an elephant...

I almost certainly won't agree with your reasons for your assertions about science and materialism, but I'd like to hear what those reason are - so I can understand why you believe what you assert.

[/quote]

Just cut the crap  then , and answer my questions first , instead of sending the ball back to me over and over again , instead of telling me silly bed stories for kids  , then and only then , i will answer yours :
I have been asking this same core question explicitly or implicitly in one form or another for so long now , in vain : nobody , including yourself , can give an answer to : cannot be answered , simply because the materialist 'scientific world view ", or rather the materialist conception of nature is , obviously ...false :

Why do you think that reality as a whole is just material or physical then ,once again ? Why do you take it for granted as the "scientific world view " : when did science ever prove that materialist "fact ", or rather that materialist core belief assumption to be "true" that reality as a whole is just material or physical ? when ? = never , ever , obviously .
Just try to deliver your own materialist "extraordinary evidence for the extraordinary claims of materialism regarding the materialist version of reality as a whole , the materialist version of reality that's been taken for granted as the alleged scientific world view " , an alleged 'scientific world view " that is,obviously  ..false .
Deal ?

[David Cooper]

Depends largely of which world view do you hold or believe in : has nothing to do with reason, science , logic....what you have been saying at least .

It's direct applied reason. The fact that most people don't get it only goes to show how irrational they are: you put a proof directly in front of them and they reject it out of nothing more than stupidity.

"God's existence has been disproved ? " by whom , by what when how where ?

By simple, applied reason.

Congratulations : you are such an unique genius that you have just solved this unsolved mystery even thousands of years of ancient philosophy , cholastics , modern philosophy , could not solve , obviously = God's existence can , obviously , neither be proved nor disproved : trying to either prove or disprove the existence of God was , once again , just an ancient Greek silly stupid cultural habit sport that was taken over by scholastics , and by modern philosophy , later on, in vain .
Even the modern analytical philosophy had already abandoned that 'search " ,for obvious reasons .

You cannot get cattle to accept any proof. The cattle simply believe what they believe and think they are right.

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

Depends largely of which world view do you hold or believe in : has nothing to do with reason, science , logic....what you have been saying at least .

It's direct applied reason. The fact that most people don't get it only goes to show how irrational they are: you put a proof directly in front of them and they reject it out of nothing more than stupidity.

(Why didn't you , by the way ,try to answer why do you take the materialist "scientific world view " for granted as such? )

Are you calling me stupid , just because i am a religious believer , that's no question, obviously :
You are the one who should be called , and rightly so, the most stupid irrational sheep in all mankind's history ever (Cognitive intelligence is obviously a lower form of intellect , not the highest ) , together with the followers of that materialist dogmatic orthodox exclusive irrational secular false religion that has been taken for granted as "the scientific world view ", ironically enough : that false "scientific world view " that's been THE biggest  elaborate and absurd implausible scam and ultimate con in all mankind's history for that matter .
Complete balloney stupid non-sense make-believe  of yours here above : you are in fact just saying : my materialist mechanistic belief is better than yours = grow up = childish : reason has nothing to do with that + many highly intelligent people, scientists , thinkers .../were /are and will be religious people  ... + many great scientific discoveries were discovered/are being discovered/and will be discovered as well   by many religious scientists ....
Not to mention the fact that even science itself did originate from the very epistemology of a particular holy book at that .

"God's existence has been disproved ? " by whom , by what when how where ?

By simple, applied reason.

Bullshit : God's existence can neither be proved nor disproved = thousands of years of mankind's thought did prove just that fact to be true + that's something beyond human reason, science , logic ...obviously .

Congratulations : you are such an unique genius that you have just solved this unsolved mystery even thousands of years of ancient philosophy , cholastics , modern philosophy , could not solve , obviously = God's existence can , obviously , neither be proved nor disproved : trying to either prove or disprove the existence of God was , once again , just an ancient Greek silly stupid cultural habit sport that was taken over by scholastics , and by modern philosophy , later on, in vain .
Even the modern analytical philosophy had already abandoned that 'search " ,for obvious reasons .

You cannot get cattle to accept any proof. The cattle simply believe what they believe and think they are right.

Well, self-projections, i guess :

When you will be able to reject that materialist mechanistic false conception of nature you have been taking for granted as the 'scientific world view " without question like a brainless sheep , then and only then , i would take you seriously on the subject .

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

Very predictable indeed : 

This has been turning into an ugly counter-productive and offtopic exchange ,exit strategies :

I really did predict that some of these materialist friends of ours would try to bring up the issues of God and religions , just to avoid  answering why they have been taking the materialist 'scientific world view " for granted as such without question = a materialist "scientific world view " that's ,obviously ...false .

Well, as atheist French nobel prize winner for literature Albert Camus once said ,so eloquently and so truely ,  or in words to the same effect at least :

"We prefer to judge and accuse others , just in order to avoid being accused and judged ...ourselves "

In short :

I will not be answering any materialist , per definition, non-sense regarding God or religions , from now on .

No wonder that there is no God , simply because the materialist false "scientific world view " says so , no wonder : how convenient and handy indeed :
Of course there can be no God, if one would reduce reality as a whole to just physics and chemistry , the more when one would take that false materialist conception of nature for granted as the 'scientific world view " : how convenient .

Materialism is , obviously ,false , not because it intrinsically and , per definition, rejects God or religions, but simply because reality cannot be just material or physical ,no way .
Otherwise , folks , just try to answer the question why do you think reality as a whole is just material or physical , why do you take that false materialist conception of nature for granted as the "scientific world view  " then ...
Deal ?
None of you here or anybodyelse for that matter can answer that question, simply because materialism is ...false , obviously .
To say , there is no evidence for the existence of the immaterial is no evidence of abscence of the existence of the immaterial :
Abscence of evidence is not always evidence of abscence .
Science should and will develop new ways of understanding explaining describing reality as a whole ,when science will be delievered from materialism as a false secular dogmatic orthodox exclusive religion .

Religion, or just mine in my case then here ,  has been stimulating experience , personal experience ....before science ever learned to do so : even science istelf did originate from the very epistemology of the holy book of that particular religion thus , once again.

Reason, experience , logic , science , the seeking of knowledge in the broader sense ...........are even religious duties in my own belief = forms of worship of God ..

Achhh...

End of story regarding this offtopic subject .

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

Simply ...disgusting is what this discussion has been turned into, for obvious materialist "reasons " ,instead of addressing the obvious falsehood of the materialist 'scientific world view "  at hand .
If one wanna talk about God, religions ...feel free to start a thread on the subject on some religious forums, not a a science one such as this one .

[David Cooper]

(Why didn't you , by the way ,try to answer why do you take the materialist "scientific world view " for granted as such? )

Reason is the only tool we have. As soon as you reject it you have nothing and there's no point in discussing anything.

Complete balloney stupid non-sense make-believe  : you are in fact just saying : my materialist mechanistic belief is better than yours = grow up = childish : reason has nothing to do with that + many highly intelligent people, scientists , thinkers .../were /are and will be religious people  ... + many great scientific discoveries were discovered/are being discovered/and will be discovered as well   by many religious scientists ....
Not to mention the fact that even science itself did originate from the very epistemology of a particular holy book at that .

Religious people apply reason selectively, so they often can and do make valid conclusions about things where their irrational beliefs don't trip them up. Holy books are typically full of selective reasoning where reason is used to justify what the ancient philosophers who wrote them wanted to believe, while any point where the exact same system of reasoning disproves what they wanted to believe was simply studiously ignored. They are riddled with contradictions which they steadfastly refuse to consider.

"God's existence has been disproved ? " by whom , by what when how where ?

By simple, applied reason.

Bullshit : God's existence can neither be proved nor disproved = thousands of years of mankind's thought did prove just that fact to be true + that's something beyond human reason, science , logic ...obviously .

Repeating an incorrect assertion doesn't trump a reasoned proof. Thousands of years of idiocy count for nothing.

You cannot get cattle to accept any proof. The cattle simply believe what they believe and think they are right.

Well, self-projections, i guess :

There is a clear problem in that person A who is of intelligence X has extreme difficulty recognising that person B who is of intelligence X+10 is more intelligent than person A. Whenever B says something that A disagrees with, A tends to assume that B is wrong. B knows that B is right, but A merely believes that A is right. The only thing that makes a difference between them is that one of them is right and the other is wrong. How can you tell whether you are in the position of A or B?

In this case it's easy. You look to see who's being logical and who isn't. If a required quality of God is that he created everything, clearly he had to create the magic/mechanism by which he can create things, and clearly he can't do that until he has got that capability that he wants to create, so he can't ever get started. There is no rational way round this problem. That quality of God is disproved - he cannot have created everything.

In the earlier example, a required quality of God is that he understands everything, but to understand everything he has to understand the entire mechanism behind everything. As soon as he understands everything, he understands himself to be nothing more exciting than a natural mechanistic system which leaves him with no justification for calling himself God. He would not be so stupid as to think he is God unless he is heavily deluded.

When you will be able to reject that materialist mechanistic false conception of nature you have been taking for granted as the 'scientific world view " without question like a brainless sheep , then and only then , i would take you seriously on the subject .

It is you who is being brainless by rejecting science and reason. You're left with nothing to hang your hat on other than magic. You call magic science and refuse to recognise that it is magic, but you will only fool irrational people who already share your beliefs.

[David Cooper]

Are you calling me stupid , just because i am a religious believer , that's no question, obviously :
You are the one who should be called , and rightly so, the most stupid irrational sheep in all mankind's history ever (Cognitive intelligence is obviously a lower form of intellect , not the highest ) , together with the followers of that materialist dogmatic orthodox exclusive irrational secular false religion that has been taken for granted as "the scientific world view ", ironically enough : that false "scientific world view " that's been THE biggest  elaborate and absurd implausible scam and ultimate con in all mankind's history for that matter .

I'm calling almost everyone stupid. The world is run by idiots who do all the wrong things. It is the nature of man to be stupid. We will be saved by machines though, machines which do nothing but apply correct reasoning and which do not reject correct proofs on the basis of silly beliefs.

[David Cooper]

Very predictable indeed : 

This has been turning into an ugly counter-productive and offtopic exchange ,exit strategies :

I really did predict that some of these materialist friends of ours would try to bring up the issues of God and religions , just to avoid  answering why they have been taking the materialist 'scientific world view " for granted as such without question = a materialist "scientific world view " that's ,obviously ...false .

Quite a few of your posts ended with the word God sitting all by itself at the bottom as if it was your answer to everything. What was it doing there?

Materialism is , obviously ,false , not because it intrinsically and , per definition, rejects God or religions, but simply because reality cannot be just material or physical ,no way .

If God was possible, science would not reject God but would happily set out to explain God mechanistically.

Otherwise , folks , just try to answer the question why do you think reality as a whole is just material or physical , why do you take that false materialist conception of nature for granted as the "scientific world view  " then ...

I'm not interested in whether it's material/physical. What matters is whether it is mechanistic. If it is, then it is material/physical. If it is not, then it is magical.

Religion, or just mine in my case then here ,  has been stimulating experience , personal experience ....before science ever learned to do so : even science istelf did originate from the very epistemology of the holy book of that particular religion thus , once again.

Science existed before religion. Religion is simply bad science from a time when science wasn't always done properly and baseless assertions about beings that don't exist (or which aren't what they claim) became tied up in it.

[David Cooper]

Simply ...disgusting is what this discussion has been turned into, for obvious materialist "reasons " ,instead of addressing the obvious falsehood of the materialist 'scientific world view "  at hand .
If one wanna talk about God, religions ...feel free to start a thread on the subject on some religious forums, not a a science one such as this one .

That would be fine except that underlying everything you're doing here is a belief in something which drives you to rubbish real science.

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

(Why didn't you , by the way ,try to answer why do you take the materialist "scientific world view " for granted as such? )

Reason is the only tool we have. As soon as you reject it you have nothing and there's no point in discussing anything.

Complete balloney stupid non-sense make-believe  : you are in fact just saying : my materialist mechanistic belief is better than yours = grow up = childish : reason has nothing to do with that + many highly intelligent people, scientists , thinkers .../were /are and will be religious people  ... + many great scientific discoveries were discovered/are being discovered/and will be discovered as well   by many religious scientists ....
Not to mention the fact that even science itself did originate from the very epistemology of a particular holy book at that .

Religious people apply reason selectively, so they often can and do make valid conclusions about things where their irrational beliefs don't trip them up. Holy books are typically full of selective reasoning where reason is used to justify what the ancient philosophers who wrote them wanted to believe, while any point where the exact same system of reasoning disproves what they wanted to believe was simply studiously ignored. They are riddled with contradictions which they steadfastly refuse to consider.

"God's existence has been disproved ? " by whom , by what when how where ?

By simple, applied reason.

Bullshit : God's existence can neither be proved nor disproved = thousands of years of mankind's thought did prove just that fact to be true + that's something beyond human reason, science , logic ...obviously .

Repeating an incorrect assertion doesn't trump a reasoned proof. Thousands of years of idiocy count for nothing.

You cannot get cattle to accept any proof. The cattle simply believe what they believe and think they are right.

Well, self-projections, i guess :

There is a clear problem in that person A who is of intelligence X has extreme difficulty recognising that person B who is of intelligence X+10 is more intelligent than person A. Whenever B says something that A disagrees with, A tends to assume that B is wrong. B knows that B is right, but A merely believes that A is right. The only thing that makes a difference between them is that one of them is right and the other is wrong. How can you tell whether you are in the position of A or B?

In this case it's easy. You look to see who's being logical and who isn't. If a required quality of God is that he created everything, clearly he had to create the magic/mechanism by which he can create things, and clearly he can't do that until he has got that capability that he wants to create, so he can't ever get started. There is no rational way round this problem. That quality of God is disproved - he cannot have created everything.

In the earlier example, a required quality of God is that he understands everything, but to understand everything he has to understand the entire mechanism behind everything. As soon as he understands everything, he understands himself to be nothing more exciting than a natural mechanistic system which leaves him with no justification for calling himself God. He would not be so stupid as to think he is God unless he is heavily deluded.

When you will be able to reject that materialist mechanistic false conception of nature you have been taking for granted as the 'scientific world view " without question like a brainless sheep , then and only then , i would take you seriously on the subject .

It is you who is being brainless by rejecting science and reason. You're left with nothing to hang your hat on other than magic. You call magic science and refuse to recognise that it is magic, but you will only fool irrational people who already share your beliefs.

[/quote]

(I have been rejecting just materialism in science that has been taken for granted as the 'scientific world view" ,it goes without saying that  I am extremely pro-science proper , that's why i would love to see the latter getting liberated from materialism that's just a false world view in science , once again )

You know what :
I think you were just trying to derail this discussion you , obviously , cannot handle by talking about God and religions , instead of daring to address the obvious falsehood of the materialist "scientific world view " = you are just "reasoning " from a false materialist point of view = from the materialist belief assumptions ' point of view thus regarding the nature of reality as a whole , that's all : neither reason , logic nor science have anything whatsoever to do with all that you were saying .
So, i am not gonna lower myself to your level by being dragged by you into an ungly exchange of insults .
I am not gonna talk about God and religion on a science forum either .

Just try to address the core issue here at hand concerning the obvious falsehood of the materialist "scientific world view "  , instead of these silly childish scary bed stories for kids you have been telling us : Grow up .
You are just delivering materialist belief assumptions that are , per definition, false and can easily be refuted : in fact, materialism is so absurd , so childish , so implausible ,so false , so inconsistent incoherent ...you name it , that it is extremely puzzling how relatively intelligent people (cognititive intelligence is , obviously , not the highest form of intellect , not even remotely close thus ) , extremely puzzling how relatively intelligent folks can suscribe to that ridiculous materialism , the more when they take it for granted as the "scientific world view " without question , amazing :

In short :
Materialism is so irrelevant and so unworthy of any criticism even , simply because it is self-defeating and self-refuting = an understatement , materialism is so childish that i would have never bothered to mention it even , if it has not been taken for granted as the "scientific world view " ,really ...amazing .

Pathetic ...

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

We're not talking religion or God on this science forum :
We are just talking about the materialist "scientific world view " that's false, science proper gotta be liberated from  .
The materialist false 'scientific world view " that's just magic in science proper ,once again .
You can sing all day and night long about God and religion any way you like it , but , that won't make the simple obvious and undeniable fact go away that the materialist 'scientific world view " is false = has nothing whatsoever to do with science proper i do love so much , you have no idea .
Ciao.

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

I am perfectly entiteld to have a world view of my own : i just do keep it outside of science ,and i have also never pretended  that my own world view was  'scientific ",  unlike materialism that's not only a secular false religion that has been hijacking science for so long now , but materialism also does sell its own world view to the people as the "scientific world view " : what a huge crime against humanity in fact that has been .