jonnygothispen wrote:So I'm guessing you assume that this natural world created itself w/o any proof, OK. Pretty much the same argument you make against God believers.
How so? I've made absolutely no claim about how the universe came to be (when do you think I did?), except to say that there's no reason to predict the existence of something supernatural to explain it. There is lots
of evidence to support the idea that the universe needed absolutely no help getting started. But the notion that if science cannot provide all
the answers, the answer must
be supernatural is simply illogical, both in principle and based on the history of that argument. Virtually everything we now know was once explained away exactly as you attempt to do now. But lightning bolts aren't caused by Zeus, diseases aren't caused by demons, and the sun isn't Ra's ship sailing across the sky.
jonnygothispen wrote:The Universe, then is your euphemism for "God."
No, it isn't. The universe is the universe. It is a physical thing, not a supernatural force. You feel a need to attach a name to something you imagine stands apart from everything we know exists, not me.
Prof. Wagstaff wrote:No, you're suggesting the two are equivalent. By definiton, nature is natural, and God is supernatural. They are wholly different things.
If one of the two doesn't exist, how can it be anything at all?
This makes no sense. Apples and bicycles are different things. If one of them didn't exist, how would that affect the other?
jonnygothispen wrote: You recognize a power greater than yourself (nature/universe), but choose to remain autonomous and separate yourself from that...
What? I am not separate from the universe in any sense at all. Considering the chemical elements composing my body were forged in now-dead stars millenia ago, the universe and I are intertwined at quite an intimate level, I'd say.
jonnygothispen wrote:Do you, yes or no, have premonitions that are often correct,
No. I don't have premonitions of any kind, but it's kind of adorable that you presume everybody does.
jonnygothispen wrote: or thoughts or concerns that do not come from within yourself, yet you're left to think them over?
I have thoughts and concerns, yes, but they most definitely come from within my brain. That's what the brain does.
jonnygothispen wrote:What about the power within people? Some people, try as they might are weak and have a hard time being heard by even one person, while another can rivet an audience of 100,000 or more to their seats by the strength of their presence. You can tell the difference in the power between a Led Zeppelin performance and Katrina and the Waves, right? By what means does this happen? Are you going to dodge that again with a reverse accusation?
The notion that I'm dodging anything is ludicrous, given my overly zealous point-by-point refutation of your arguments. But part of the problem is that you refuse to define your terms
, so I end up having to argue with phantoms. "The power within people" is a nonsense phrase and beyond criticism. It's simply not possible to explain away a made-up, nebulous concept for which there is no evidence. And the "difference in power" between rock bands is, y'know, about human taste, popularity, marketing, and dozens of other factors which have no clear tie to any supernatural agent, unless you have some evidence Jimmy Page really did make a deal with the devil.
jonnygothispen wrote:I think I will define ['intellectual properties"] as having a will of your own, to be able to pick and choose, no matter how strong or weak your sense of being is, insect or scientist.
Earlier you said that "all living things" have these properties. What about bacteria, trees, and jellyfish? They are all alive. Do bacteria have free will? Do trees have a "sense of being"? Do jellyfish "pick and choose"? If your concepts only make sense in the vaguest of terms, then they really aren't very explanatory. Criticizing me for failing to grasp something you've invented but cannot explain is ludicrous.
jonnygothispen wrote:Oddly, as someone else pointed out, atheism depends on belief in God for it's existence.
Do you believe in Santa Claus? No, you say? Well, that proves that he exists.
This argument is so monumentally stupid I can't bring myself to say any more about it. Just watch this.
jonnygothispen wrote:You can say you don't believe in God all you like, but you can't actually prove you don't believe in God. They're just words.
My thoughts are not just words. Of course it is impossible to prove what someone else actually thinks, but by your logic, I can prove you don't believe any of the nonsense you're spouting either. You can't have it both ways.
jonnygothispen wrote:...hence your insistence on this debate.
My insistence? I told you earlier that I would respond if you did. So if you don't want to have this debate, stop egging me on. Because as long as you keep posting drivel, I'm going to keep debunking it, especially if you continue to misrepresent my views.
jonnygothispen wrote: you have evidence that nature created your thoughts?
I sure do. Lots. It's called neurobiology.
jonnygothispen wrote: Your definition of nature is extremely vague: the natural world and everything in it
How is that vague? Pretty inclusive, I'd say. Do you consider the set of all positive integers vague as well? But OK, you don't understand, so I'll be more specific: Nature (I prefer the universe, actually, but I don't mind too much making the substitution) is the collective name for all of the physical world, including all matter and energy, as well as the underlying structure of spacetime in which they exist.
jonnygothispen wrote:...but you want a clear definition of God.
Not really, at least not from you. You've shied away from that term, so I have no cause to challenge you about it. I and others have asked you for the terms we want defined, most of which remain nebulous because of your refusal to answer. Again, it's impossible to argue against an undefined concept, so calling me out for not doing so is ridiculous.
jonnygothispen wrote: Your main claim them is that there is no other claim than yours.
Huh? I'm willing to examine all comers when it comes to claims about the nature of the universe and how it came to be. Show me the evidence and I will evaluate it.
jonnygothispen wrote:I'm talking about a feeling without cognitive recognition that turns out to be completely true...
What you ascribe to precognition, I ascribe to decision-making within the brain. And how do you explain all those "feelings" you get that turn out to be wrong? My guess is, you ignore them, because that's how confirmation bias
jonnygothispen wrote:You ascribe to nature the supernatural force of being able to determine the difference between good and bad w/o pre-recognition.
I do no such thing, especially given that what you just said is meaningless tripe. Stringing random words together is not very convincing evidence for a supernatural force.
jonnygothispen wrote:The idea as presented by wagstaff that nature dictates his thoughts.
Nature produced my brain. My brain dictates my thoughts.
jonnygothispen wrote:That nature tells you what is good or bad.
I never said anything like this. When you tried putting these words in my mouth last time, I expressed bafflement at how it was even pertinent to the discussion. Good and bad are human concepts. The universe has no morality except that which we impose on it (which was my point in posting the video explaining all the ways in which the universe tries to make itself inhospitable to our very existence.)
jonnygothispen wrote: That Nature created itself, without proof. Big Bang? Where's the proof?
The evidence for the Big Bang is literally all around us. You just don't want to look at it
because you've already come to your own conclusions. As for "nature creating itself", as I said, there are several possibilities, none of which can yet be confirmed. In your book, admitting this means science has failed and therefore only a supernatural explanation will suffice. In my book, conclusions cannot be drawn without evidence.
jonnygothispen wrote:I still want to hear Wagstaff's ideas about the personal power within people, or as I define it, their souls. These things are self evident in every person
There is one thing of which I am absolutely certain: You have no idea what "self-evident" means.
jonnygothispen wrote:I've noticed that the Atheists who like arguing often set up a fortress of words they think impenetrable the very same way religious fanatics repeat scripture.
Whose words are impenetrable? The words which are strictly defined and describe actual things for which there is evidence, or the words which you use without defining them, amounting to nothing more than unsubstantiated mumbo jumbo?
I look forward to your accusations that I am dodging the questions which I have responded to point-by-point, while you continue to ignore mine.