Strict materialism/naturalism is proven false

naturalism/materialism are not the only thing our existence is based on. proof it is not is that you have the immaterial world

*laws of logic
*laws of nature


None of which support the assertion that a cartoon magic man from a goat herder mythology exists. Or did you fail to receive the memo in your desperation to post yet more ex recto apologetic fabrications?


How is “existence” based on any of this. These are human inventions/observations. Surely you would exist whether or not the laws of logic, the ‘observations of nature,’ the invention of numbers, or mathmatics existed. Why would you think existence is ‘based on’ any of this.

What if existence is based on the four fundamental forces in the universe the strong force, the weak force, the electromagnetic force, and the gravitational force.

Thank you for your clarity of reason Mr. Yoda.


since i’ll get in trouble for anything i say, i’ll just say - did i ever mention God? yes or no answer only

also, why don’t you refute the statements i made instead of diverting away to another subject?

sorry for the wrong post

cognostic, i am sorry. i don’t think i answered your question/issue. i don’t think my reply was for you or had anything to do to.

laws of logic are not human inventions. laws of logic are true and exist regardless of if humans are around, like the law of contradiction.

same with laws of nature and abstract objects like numbers

1 Like

I can see that you still have not accepted Kyle as being the creator of our universe. Tsk-tsk-tsk… What a shame. And I find it puzzling, because with the exception of the super-intelligence trait, YOU are the one who actually described Kyle. (Well, okay, in all fairness, you had no way of knowing he is invisible, blue, and ginormous. Otherwise, though, you nailed it.) And by your own standards/requirements, you really can’t deny Kyle until you prove to everybody Kyle doesn’t exist. So I guess I’m still waiting for you to bring in some type of evidence proving Kyle isn’t real.

1 Like

This is how this is ALREADY playing out. For example, you’re Dr. Silberman and JC1332 is Kyle Reese. Kyle who sounds fucking nuts talking about machines from the future. Dr. Silberman is not convinced for obvious reasons.

No really, this is exactly how off the wall JC sounds in this thread alone. Some people should really take a moment and listen to themselves when they talk. If you don’t want to sound like the crazy religious idiot who no one wants to listen to then don’t act like one.

oh tin-man, i can’t even state any other worldviews here since you guys snitched on me because you didn’t like it and couldn’t refute it, so i got on double secret probation.

Just curious, are you saying laws of logic and laws of nature are physical? i can’t even accuse you of running away anymore because someone will get their tender sensitive feelings hurt and snitch on me like a rat

1 Like

We’re not making claims. When you come on here claiming that a god exists, you will get called out on it and asked to meet your Burden of Proof. You can’t just conveniently tell us to refute it. Is your faith in your religion so weak that you need others to validate it for you?

1 Like

blah blah blah diverting from the subject . so yes or no answer only, are laws of nature and laws of logic physical or not?

1 Like

there you go again MrDawn. CLEARLY not even in the ball park of what we are talking about. the question was about laws of nature and logic not being physical.

can you tell me where i said God. i’ll be waiting for your answer, i’m drooling, please help me by answering that

1 Like

You don’t get to tell me how to answer. This is just you probing and using the “Just because we can’t see it doesn’t mean it’s not there” fallacious argument. Still doesn’t prove a deity exists.

1 Like

so are you saying that it is good dialogue and exchanging of ideas to have someone ask a simple question and the other person runs away all the time? how can you even call that communicating with each other.

sounds like anti-intellectual discourse

1 Like

You call that Yoda talk shit 'Statements?" How about you actually adhere to a standard English typology and use ‘SVO’ (‘Subject, Verb, Object.’) in your communications. What is it you think you have said? It should be obvious by the replies that what you think you have said is not what people are reading from your ineffective communication skills.

why do you REFUSE to answer the question MrDawn…are the laws of nature and logic, are they physical or not? very very simple question, you don’t need to run away

i did say a “sentence” that was clearly incoherent and out of wack. sorry. i do not remember typing that so not sure how that happened.

none the less, so you agree that laws of nature and logic are not physical, it sounds like because you can’t refute it.

Actually, no one lodged a complaint against you. I had to act in my duties as an Admin because you disrespected an Admin. In other forums, for example World of Warships forum, if you just hint at a criticism or discontent, you receive a permanent ban.

I do regret sanctioning you, but you stepped over a red line. I did feel bad, and about an hour later amended my actions to just a 24 hour suspension.

Anyways, welcome back, I do hope you get to express yourself and your opinions.

You can run around naked, waving flags and acting like Ruprecht Jamieson for all I care, but wholesale mud slinging is not appreciated. In other words, Tin-Man did not snitch on you, so stop that shit.

1 Like

OK, they all exist. So what?

david, i was and am really really new at this and didn’t know that. honestly did not want to disrespect you but to only question the decision. anyway, i learned that lesson.

is it ok on here to give academia and scholarship (astrophysical, histography, biology) for the evidences given by the scholars - not me - given to support the existence of a God, intelligent design, or resurrection?

i am not here to hurt anyone’s feelings, but think we all are better off with more information and i would think it would be ok to give academia on here for those subjects… and of course, i am always wanting everyone to refute me which helps balance the dialogue