mnkbdky

Here is another example of the same fallacy.

Grass is green

Frogs are green

Frogs are grass

SecularFuture

mnkbdky
Of course its not.

This is not an answer to my question. I asked - How can an immaterial being have thought?

This is an opinion. Can you turn this opinion into a theory or a fact?

SecularFuture

But frogs aren't grass!!


What is wrong with you, man?!

mnkbdky

Of course they aren't.

This is an example of your hideous argument above, namely,

God is immaterial

thoughts are immaterial

Therefore, God is thought.

This is a logical fallacy. It is not a valid argument and is just like arguing that Frog are grass.

Thanks,

--mnkbdky

SecularFuture

mnkbdky
You say “God” is immaterial
I say thoughts are immaterial

My point was this:
“God” and thoughts are both immaterial.

But if this is true…
How can an immaterial being have thought?

This is an opinion. Can you turn this opinion into a theory or a fact?

mnkbdky

The point I am making is that your argument suffers from what is called parity.

That is, I should not be expected to explain how it is possible for immaterial beings to have thought if my opponent, the materialist, cannot explain how it is possible that material have thought.

The question suffers from parity and thus not a valid question.

You really should read a book or take a class on logic.

A theory is something that is hypothesized in order to explain so it is already a theory. That is, I experience the firm conviction that an immaterial being such as the Christian God exists. I hypothesize that this experience of firm conviction concerning the existence of the Xian God is caused by some sensory organ that allows one to have experiences of that being, this sensory organ is called the [i]sensus divinitas[i].

Now it is a theory.

Can I make it a fact. No. It is either a fact already or it is not. There is nothing I can do to make it factual. If the experiece is indeed caused by the sensory organ which experiences God then it is a fact. If it is not, then it is false.


Thanks,

--mnkbdky

mnkbdky

SF was quoting me, however, I made a typo--actually call it a thought fart. The real argument SF made was

God is immaterial
Thoughts are immaterial
Therefore, God is thoughts

No, your point was not that both God and thoughts were immaterial. It was that God was thought.

The argument is the same as saying

Grass is green
Frogs are green

Grass is Frogs

This is a logical fallacy.

Thanks,

--mnkbdky

SecularFuture

Mnkbdky
This is not an answer to my question. I asked – How can an immaterial being have thought?

A “brain scientist” can explain how material beings can have thought. Why can’t you, a theologian in training, explain how an immaterial being can have thought?

<inflammatory non-sequitur deleted by moderator>

A theory is based on facts. You only have assumptions.

Theory
---- A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

If there are still other possible explanations for what theists interpret as being of a divine origin or nature, there is still room for doubt and further investigation. And where there is room for further investigation, there is no absolute knowledge or absolute truth. Untested - personal - interpretations of so-called divine events could be nothing more than natural phenomenon.

Well then.... Your definition of a god is nothing more than an opinion.

SecularFuture

mnkbdky
Well, I changed it. I made a typo.

If “God” is immaterial, and thoughts are immaterial, how can “God” have thoughts?

mnkbdky

A brain scientists cannot tell us how it is possible for material to think. A brain scientist merely observes what happen to the brain the processes of the brain. If the brain scientist new how it is possible to make material conscious, then, they should be able to make certain materials gain consciousness. However, they cannot.

To answer the question specifically, I will answer with the same answer the materialist must give, "I do not know."


I am not sure how that is related to logic. Logic is concerned with truth value. Fu## you is not a statement or proposition that has truth value. That is, Fu## you is neither true nor false.

I don't get it. LOL


My theory was based on the fact that I do experience, from time to time, the firm conviction that an immaterial being matching the description of the Xian God does exist. In fact, the theory is based on the fact that millions of people through out the centuries have experienced this too. Of course so have those in other religions experienced the conviction that their God exists. Perhaps, though ex hypothesis they are mis-identifying God. They could say the same thing about my experience of the Xian God, which could also be true.


Not true. There are other explanations concerning the experience of the material world. Berkley thought the material world did not exist, Hume believed that to attribute causation was not possible and therefore science is making unjustified claims. The fact that these options exists does not mean that one does not have knowledge of the material world or that the material world does not exist. One is able to trust there senses and say for a fact that the material world exists. The same applies to theists. They are allowed to trust their sense that God exists and say for a fact that he does. It is as simple as that.

I have proven that it is possible to experience an immaterial being. And that God, according to the Judeao-Islamic-Xian tradition, is said to be immaterial and therefore, if this God exists, it is possible to experience that God.

If that God does exist and the person has experienced that God then the person is justified in their belief that such a God exists.

A person may trust their experience and people have experienced that this God exists. Therefore, they are justified in believing that God exists.

This is not an argument to prove that such a God does exists. It is an argument to say that theist are justified in their beliefs and are not hanging on to a thin thread of -- unfounded--faith. Their faith is completely founded in their experiences.

Thanks for the conversation. It has been fun.

--mnkbdky