UCTAA churchlight

Site Search via Google

Discussion 17 to Talk Back 86
End of Discussion

by: JT

To add to this discussion (or any other,) please use the Contact form.

I responded to Rob Lockett's last by telling him this discussion is now over.

He replied saying

Sounds like I hit a nerve... You must be like James Randi... you only allow easy targets, and run scared from a legitimate challenge. 

Did I violate some 'absolute moral law'...  John?

No Rob. You did not hit a nerve. You just exposed your arguments for what they are - totally baseless depending entirely on definitions which include the conclusion you want to reach.

You finally recognized "we cannot agree upon the meaning of words." Duh! That's been pointed out to you over and over in responses to what you have written. And what do you do? You continue to insist your definitions are the only ones that can be used. You don't make the slightest attempt to find a consensus. You continue to use the same old rejected definitions - rejected legitimately because they incorporate your desired conclusions.

To have an exchange of views, both sides must agree on what the words mean. When words have multiple meanings, and most words do, it is not appropriate for one side to impose their particular definitions, and then insist their conclusions arising out of those definitions are sound.

But you insist on using your definitions, Not only that, you cheat! You found a dictionary definition which defines god as the ultimate reality. But that was not good enough for you - you turned that all by yourself into "god is synonymous with reality." Even if we accepted that particular dictionary definition as appropriate for this discussion (and it is not,) your switching ultimate reality to reality is making an unsubstantiated claim of something entirely different from the dictionary definition.

On the issue of faith, the physicist Robert L. Park wrote in response to Paul Davies' article (which you keep referring to) by explaining how faith as used in science arises out of evidence, and faith as used in religion is necessary because of the lack of evidence "Davies has confused the two meanings of the word faith. The two meanings of faith are not only different, they are completely opposite." You do the same thing. It's been pointed out to you. Yet you demand we accept your version. Sorry, but we use faith in the same way Dr. Park does.

Why have I ended this discussion Rob? Not because you present a legitimate challenge, but because I have already given far to much space on this site to someone who presents no challenge at all.

There is a very old and very silly argument for god which goes along the lines of:

God is perfect

Perfection includes existence.

Therefore God necessarily exists.

Your pages and pages of arguments amount to:

God is reality

You believe in reality (or alternatively, Science is based on reality)

Therefore you believe in God. ( or alternatively, Therefore science is a religion)

Same silliness. Same logical fallacy. It's just blatant nonsense. And you take so many words to say it.

You accuse those who disagree with you of indignant obfuscation. But strip away all the verbiage from what you have written, and it is obvious that your premises (definitions are part and parcel of premises) include your conclusions. That's a logical fallacy known as begging the question. (Also known as circular reasoning.) The discussion is over because based on what you have written so far, you intend to repeat the same logical error over and over again.

And the irrelevant, totally dishonest, cheap shot at James Randi illustrates just how flawed your understanding of logical processes are.

A semi-irrelevant and quite irreverent aside to illustrate where silly definitions and premises lead us:

This afternoon on the radio there was an advertisement for a seminar led by Deepak Chopra. It concluded by inviting the listener to "immerse yourself in Deepak Chopra's cutting edge reality"

So - if by Rob Lockett's slippery definition "God is reality;" does this mean that Deepak Chopra owns God or that Deepak Chopra is God?

(If Rob thinks ultimate reality and reality are the same thing, then so must be cutting edge reality (whatever that is.))