Internet Mormons, Chapel Mormons, Critics, Apologists, and Never-Mo's all welcome!
https://discussmormonism.com/
I like the sentiment of this quote but it is just wrong. You can never eliminate all which is impossible. Because you may not even know all the impossible cases.
Rivendale, perhaps you mean , you cannot even know all the possible cases.
You can't know either. Ruling out all the possible cases could include things such as aliens. The list literally never ends on both sides. And not only the list the investigator makes, there are things the investigator may not even think of. I don't even know what it would look like to demonstrate the truth claim of a god. Remember the Arthur Clark quote. Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. Or god like.huckelberry wrote: ↑Mon Mar 07, 2022 9:47 pmRivendale, perhaps you mean , you cannot even know all the possible cases.
My ancient memory of Arthur Conan Doyle says the quote is probably from an investigator of crime looking at a limited set of circumstances and asking himself which direction to focus his inquires, which path to pursue investigation.
I have not met an argument for or against Gods existence which is conclusive. Living our life is our only investigation.
What would a demonstration of non physical look like?dantana wrote: ↑Mon Mar 07, 2022 11:33 pmFor all intents though, it's not so much a question of how many rabbit holes there are to rule out, it's just the two main ones. Physicalism, or not physicalism. I rule out physicalism for the reasons I've stated. There are scattering billiard balls, but there is no cue ball.
I haven't ever asserted that I have an answer for why there is being instead of non-being. I've only stated that I have ruled out physicalism for myself. I think that a mechanical based methodology is not suited to detail how particles one day popped into existence.Rivendale wrote: ↑Tue Mar 08, 2022 10:31 pmWhat would a demonstration of non physical look like?dantana wrote: ↑Mon Mar 07, 2022 11:33 pmFor all intents though, it's not so much a question of how many rabbit holes there are to rule out, it's just the two main ones. Physicalism, or not physicalism. I rule out physicalism for the reasons I've stated. There are scattering billiard balls, but there is no cue ball.
Or, living out our lives is our only experience... until afterwards...huckelberry wrote: ↑Mon Mar 07, 2022 9:47 pmRivendale, perhaps you mean , you cannot even know all the possible cases.
My ancient memory of Arthur Conan Doyle says the quote is probably from an investigator of crime looking at a limited set of circumstances and asking himself which direction to focus his inquires, which path to pursue investigation.
I have not met an argument for or against Gods existence which is conclusive. Living our life is our only investigation.
I don't understand this. Why do you suppose that particles just popped into existence? This seems like left over physiological baggage from being born and then attributing this to every other thing that you experience. Reality as we see it is not reality I would grant that. We see a slice of reality.dantana wrote: ↑Wed Mar 09, 2022 2:11 amI haven't ever asserted that I have an answer for why there is being instead of non-being. I've only stated that I have ruled out physicalism for myself. I think that a mechanical based methodology is not suited to detail how particles one day popped into existence.
I reckon that at least with a God, or idealism based worldview one has the option of thinking that at it's fundamentals, reality is not mechanics driven, and that's what it is going to take if one is going to say the particles one day popped into existence.
Did god have the time to create the universe? Did god exist before the creation of the universe?Physics Guy wrote: ↑Mon Mar 07, 2022 1:42 pmGod's responsibility for the universe is one of the basic theological issues, indeed. But if whatever is responsible for the initial conditions is able to offer anything we might accept as an explanation, then whatever it is, it is that much closer to the traditional concept of God.