Langan was right!

#41
(Nov 13, 2017 08:06 PM)Ostronomos Wrote: I must admit that I do not appreciate your inability to grasp simple and obvious truths that make sense with a little expenditure of effort. In fact I am rather disappointed. "Self-distributed" indicates that reality is all that can exist anywhere at anytime, except outside or externally. Hence reality is not external to itself.

Are you going to make this simple truth into a complicated issue too?

self-distributing - distributing itself automatically
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictiona...stributing

Now if you're referring to the expansion of space, I guess we could call that self-distributing, but what you're describing would be more appropriately called self-contained. And its a trivial truism that nothing si "external to itself".

The problem still lies in your (and Langan's) misuse of language.


Quote:
(Nov 13, 2017 06:12 PM)Syne Wrote: Langan isn't doing science. So any pronouncements he makes about reality are purely philosophical...just like your local guru.

Both Langan and me have made observations on the existence of God through psy phenomenon. All theories are mental contructs that have objective reality as their content. Hence, "theory of reality".

LOL! "Psy phenomenon"? You're chock full of woo. No wonder you're complete incapable of justifying any of your nonsense. Rolleyes
Reply
#42
(Nov 13, 2017 09:23 PM)Syne Wrote:
(Nov 13, 2017 08:06 PM)Ostronomos Wrote: I must admit that I do not appreciate your inability to grasp simple and obvious truths that make sense with a little expenditure of effort. In fact I am rather disappointed. "Self-distributed" indicates that reality is all that can exist anywhere at anytime, except outside or externally. Hence reality is not external to itself.

Are you going to make this simple truth into a complicated issue too?

self-distributing - distributing itself automatically
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictiona...stributing

Now if you're referring to the expansion of space, I guess we could call that self-distributing, but what you're describing would be more appropriately called self-contained. And its a trivial truism that nothing si "external to itself".

The problem still lies in your (and Langan's) misuse of language.


Quote:
(Nov 13, 2017 06:12 PM)Syne Wrote: Langan isn't doing science. So any pronouncements he makes about reality are purely philosophical...just like your local guru.

Both Langan and me have made observations on the existence of God through psy phenomenon. All theories are mental contructs that have objective reality as their content. Hence, "theory of reality".

LOL! "Psy phenomenon"? You're chock full of woo. No wonder you're complete incapable of justifying any of your nonsense.  Rolleyes

You are a fool and a hypocrite who displays a detrimentally dangerous lack of understanding of the link between God and man.
Reply
#43
Like I said awhile back, Ostro does nothing but proselytize. Trying to engage him in any genuine effort to understand only gets him parroting what his guru says, without any hope of him demonstrating that he has any special grasp that can be communicated beyond the mantra of meaningless jargon. And like a cultist, his only response to skeptical curiosity is delusional righteousness.

Ostro, you had your chance. Yaz and I really tried to give you the chance to explain. You failed miserably, and only proved what a dupe you are. I've had you on ignore for quite some time, and I'm just going back to not reading your posts. SS can have fun shooting fish in a barrel.
Reply
#44
(Nov 14, 2017 02:49 AM)Syne Wrote: Like I said awhile back, Ostro does nothing but proselytize. Trying to engage him in any genuine effort to understand only gets him parroting what his guru says, without any hope of him demonstrating that he has any special grasp that can be communicated beyond the mantra of meaningless jargon. And like a cultist, his only response to skeptical curiosity is delusional righteousness.

Ostro, you had your chance. Yaz and I really tried to give you the chance to explain. You failed miserably, and only proved what a dupe you are. I've had you on ignore for quite some time, and I'm just going back to not reading your posts. SS can have fun shooting fish in a barrel.

Am I supposed to endorse your stubborn refusal to see the light? I gave you clear explanations in my own words.

The CTMU is a mapping between logic and reality. Specifically, a self-inclusory mapping. It is logic based on observation. By showing that a self-aware designer distributes over reality it demonstrates that God is real.
Reply
#45
(Nov 14, 2017 03:13 PM)Ostronomos Wrote: Am I supposed to endorse your stubborn refusal to see the light?

What is it that you want to accomplish? Why do you post here?

Are you trying to convince us that Langan is indeed right?

If that's what you want, then the burden is on you to convince us.

In that case, what really matters is what we endorse. Because unless we are convinced by what you say, we won't believe it.

It's your job to convince us. You can't just throw out your short little "reality is..." assertions like fortunes from Chinese cookies and then expect the rest of us to concoct a logical argument that connects all of them and leads to your desired conclusions. You have to provide the argument.

Then we get to decide whether we find it plausible and whether it convinces us.

(Nov 14, 2017 03:13 PM)Ostronomos Wrote: The CTMU is a mapping between logic and reality.

So is any logical argument with real-world semantic content.

Quote:It is logic based on observation.

So are all empirical applications of logic.

Quote:By showing that a self-aware designer distributes over reality it demonstrates that God is real.

There's the leap, the non-sequitur.

How do we get from applying logic to the real world to "a self-aware designer distributing over reality"?

That's the gap that still needs to be filled.
Reply
#46
(Nov 14, 2017 04:15 PM)Yazata Wrote:
Quote:By showing that a self-aware designer distributes over reality it demonstrates that God is real.

There's the leap, the non-sequitur.

How do we get from applying logic to the real world to "a self-aware designer distributing over reality"?

That's the gap that still needs to be filled.

I think you hit on the operative word there. The jargon only exists to obscure the fact that Langan is only making a god of the gaps argument. He just tries to hide those gaps by indiscriminately jumping from science to philosophy.
Reply
#47
Props to Yaz and Syne. You guys nailed it. Hope Ostro gets it.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)