thehomer:
That wasn't my claim. Maybe you should take another look at it. Do you understand what naturalism is?

Apparently I don't. I don't know what you mean by natural, how should I know what you mean by naturalism?

From that link I asked you:

"Have you seen matter coming into existence from non-natural incidents?"

You never answered.

lol, this guy you are funny, you have not yet explained what you mean by "natural" how do you expect me to know what you mean by "non-natural incidents". Surely you know I cannot read your mind. I don't have psychic powers.

Tpfkakambo:

because it is consistent with scientic and logcl reasong. Evry thg physcl has an orign.
If ths wasnt so , then physcl thngs wud have no origin theyd b timeless, if thyre timeless then they shdn b degradable either in frm or compostion,but decay of physcality is d norm again prvg tht time is tckg away on physcality.

Wat dyu mean by Gods attrbute of necessity.

Ur premise is tht a cause cud have a natural or supernatural agent.
Then u say, a supernatural agent is not always necessary for a cause to occur,
then conclude tht based on dat God/supernatural agent doesnt exist.
Wch is utterly invalid a conclusion.

How dyu arrve at such a conclusion?

Even d premise wch most readers acceppt as valid contain flawed assumptions.

If Everything has an origin, what will God's origin be? What will Reality's origin be? What will be Causality's origin? What will be Nothingness itself's origin??

Your arguments are too bad!

Kay 17:

If Everything has an origin, what will God's origin be? What will Reality's origin be? What will be Causality's origin? What will be Nothingness itself's origin??

Your arguments are too bad!

ur questions ar answerable. But answer mine postively or Simply restate ur assumptions clearly.
Ur assumptions shudnt b frced out of u .state and defend them.

My aerguments are consistent....
Dnt bhve immature and wax emotional keep a level head.


I said physclity has an orign else it wud have Always EXISTED makg it eternal.
Now even science doesnt support tht assumption, it believes the earth and universe (perhaps) has an origin.
If d physcl wrld is ETernal then it creates implications wch go against present observations.
Reply. Dont deviate..

Mr anony:
Apparently I don't. I don't know what you mean by natural, how should I know what you mean by naturalism?

Have you already forgotten the concept you posted right here from Wikipedia? It's still up for you to read.

Mr anony:
lol, this guy you are funny, you have not yet explained what you mean by "natural" how do you expect me to know what you mean by "non-natural incidents". Surely you know I cannot read your mind. I don't have psychic powers.

Once again, just take a look at what you posted as the concept of naturalism. It refers to the natural.

thehomer:

Have you already forgotten the concept you posted right here from Wikipedia? It's still up for you to read.

Once again, just take a look at what you posted as the concept of naturalism. It refers to the natural.

Lol, of course, "naturalism is the belief that the natural is all there is" tells us everything we need to know about the natural. You are such a genius!

Mr anony:
Lol, of course, "naturalism is the belief that the natural is all there is" tells us everything we need to know about the natural. You are such a genius!

And here, you've managed to quote-mine Wikipedia to make me appear ridiculous. You're one amazing fellow. In fact, this is what you posted about the link from Wikipedia.

Wikipedia:
Naturalism refers to the viewpoint that laws of nature (as opposed to supernatural ones) operate in the universe, and that nothing exists beyond the natural universe or, if it does, it does not affect the natural universe. Adherents of naturalism (i.e. naturalists) assert that natural laws are the rules that govern the structure and behavior of the natural universe, that the universe is a product of these laws.

As you can surely see, it isn't as ridiculous as you tried to make it seem. You'll notice that since natural is an adjective, you'll see that it was used to qualify universe and laws. You should have read through your post.

This introduction is pretty clear. If you still don't understand what is meant here, then the problems you're having run much deeper than I can help you with.

thehomer:

And here, you've managed to quote-mine Wikipedia to make me appear ridiculous. You're one amazing fellow. In fact, this is what you posted about the link from Wikipedia.



As you can surely see, it isn't as ridiculous as you tried to make it seem. You'll notice that since natural is an adjective, you'll see that it was used to qualify universe and laws. You should have read through your post.

This introduction is pretty clear. If you still don't understand what is meant here, then the problems you're having run much deeper than I can help you with.

Lol, perhaps you are blind I can't believe how you failed to notice that wikipedia didn't give us any idea what the "natural" is at all, it just assumed that that the reader knew what "natural" meant.

Or perhaps next time you ask me what christianity is, remind me to define it as:

"That thing christians do as opposed to non-christians, it includes all aspects of the christian life, studying christian boooks and listening to christian music e.t.c. christians believe that being a christian is better than not being a christian."

Now my dear genius, how's the above for a definition?

You know, honestly there is no need for all this dancing. Apparently, I didn't understand wikipedia's definition of natural. Since you obviously did, could you please explain it to me?

Mr anony:
Lol, perhaps you are blind I can't believe how you failed to notice that wikipedia didn't give us any idea what the "natural" is at all, it just assumed that that the reader knew what "natural" meant.

As I pointed out to you, natural is the adjectival form of naturalism. If you know what naturalism is, then you should know what natural is.

Mr anony:
Or perhaps next time you ask me what christianity is, remind me to define it as:

"That thing christians do as opposed to non-christians, it includes all aspects of the christian life, studying christian boooks and listening to christian music e.t.c. christians believe that being a christian is better than not being a christian."

Now my dear genius, how's the above for a definition?

You know, honestly there is no need for all this dancing. Apparently, I didn't understand wikipedia's definition of natural. Since you obviously did, could you please explain it to me?

This is why I keep saying you don't understand what you're doing or what you're supposed to do.

Naturalism is to Christianity as natural here is to christian. So, the question I would ask for is what christian is. And happily, Wikipedia delivers.

Wikipedia:
The term "Christian" is also used adjectivally to describe anything associated with Christianity, or in a proverbial sense "all that is noble, and good, and Christ-like."[3]

I'm sure you find this ridiculous too.

thehomer:
As I pointed out to you, natural is the adjectival form of naturalism. If you know what naturalism is, then you should know what natural is.

lol, and what is naturalism? please try to answer without using the word "natural".

This is why I keep saying you don't understand what you're doing or what you're supposed to do.

Naturalism is to Christianity as natural here is to christian. So, the question I would ask for is what christian is. And happily, Wikipedia delivers.



I'm sure you find this ridiculous too.

Quote mininig wikipedia now are we? Let's read that statement in it's full context:

A Christian is a person who adheres to Christianity, an Abrahamic, monotheistic religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth. "Christian" derives from the Koine Greek word Christ, a translation of the Biblical Hebrew term Messiah.

Central to the Christian faith is the gospel, the teaching that humans have hope for salvation through the message and work of Jesus, and particularly, his atoning death on the cross 1Co 15:3 and resurrection 1Co 15:4. Christians also believe Jesus is the Messiah prophesied in the Hebrew Bible. Most Christians believe in the doctrine of the Trinity, a description of God as Father, Son and Holy Spirit. This includes the vast majority of churches in Christianity, although a minority are Non-trinitarians.

The term "Christian" is also used adjectivally to describe anything associated with Christianity, or in a proverbial sense "all that is noble, and good, and Christ-like." It is also used as a label to identify people who associate with the cultural aspects of Christianity, irrespective of personal religious beliefs or practices

Notice that by the time we come to the third paragraph (your quote-mined bit) The reader already has a working understanding of what Christianity is.

Your "Naturalism is about the natural" is about as helpful as "democracy is about the democratic". If you don't know what you mean by natural, all you've been doing is making empty noise. Is it really so hard to explain what you mean by the word natural?

Mr anony:
lol, and what is naturalism? please try to answer without using the word "natural".

You should have read what you quoted from Wikipedia. Or checked out a dictionary.

Mr anony:
Quote mininig wikipedia now are we? Let's read that statement in it's full context:

A Christian is a person who adheres to Christianity, an Abrahamic, monotheistic religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth. "Christian" derives from the Koine Greek word Christ, a translation of the Biblical Hebrew term Messiah.

Central to the Christian faith is the gospel, the teaching that humans have hope for salvation through the message and work of Jesus, and particularly, his atoning death on the cross 1Co 15:3 and resurrection 1Co 15:4. Christians also believe Jesus is the Messiah prophesied in the Hebrew Bible. Most Christians believe in the doctrine of the Trinity, a description of God as Father, Son and Holy Spirit. This includes the vast majority of churches in Christianity, although a minority are Non-trinitarians.

The term "Christian" is also used adjectivally to describe anything associated with Christianity, or in a proverbial sense "all that is noble, and good, and Christ-like." It is also used as a label to identify people who associate with the cultural aspects of Christianity, irrespective of personal religious beliefs or practices

Notice that by the time we come to the third paragraph (your quote-mined bit) The reader already has a working understanding of what Christianity is.

Your "Naturalism is about the natural" is about as helpful as "democracy is about the democratic". If you don't know what you mean by natural, all you've been doing is making empty noise. Is it really so hard to explain what you mean by the word natural?

It looks like you don't know what quote-mining is either. Neither the first nor the second part are adjectival forms of the word christian. The third part clearly tells you this. Christian can be a noun or an adjective so, you compare adjectives to adjectives, nouns to nouns. I simply presented you with the relevant parts in order to show you that we compare within similar categories. Another error you're fond of making.

Once again, this is what we see from Wikipedia.

Wikipedia:
Naturalism refers to the viewpoint that laws of nature (as opposed to supernatural ones) operate in the universe, and that nothing exists beyond the natural universe or, if it does, it does not affect the natural universe.[1] Adherents of naturalism (i.e. naturalists) assert that natural laws are the rules that govern the structure and behavior of the natural universe, that the universe is a product of these laws.[2]

You're seriously saying that from this you do not know what naturalism is? Then you're welcome to go through this article and understand what is meant by naturalism.

This is another one of the reasons I point out that you're just bad at apologetics. Even with an encyclopedia entry, you're confused about what naturalism is.

Anony... I mean wtf

I'm not even reading, just skimming, but wtf

I mean... Wtf

Wtf wtf wtf

Just ansah d furhgsdkfbd question... U set d furrhbgfjf standards


Wttf wtf

If I were muslim I'd have put a jihad on you by now

Wtf wtff

Jfffekf really? I mean what do you achieve with this nonsense? What??!!!

thehomer:

You should have read what you quoted from Wikipedia. Or checked out a dictionary.



It looks like you don't know what quote-mining is either. Neither the first nor the second part are adjectival forms of the word christian. The third part clearly tells you this. Christian can be a noun or an adjective so, you compare adjectives to adjectives, nouns to nouns. I simply presented you with the relevant parts in order to show you that we compare within similar categories. Another error you're fond of making.

Once again, this is what we see from Wikipedia.

You still haven't provided me with what you mean by natural neither has wikipedia.

You're seriously saying that from this you do not know what naturalism is? Then you're welcome to go through this article and understand what is meant by naturalism.

This is another one of the reasons I point out that you're just bad at apologetics. Even with an encyclopedia entry, you're confused about what naturalism is.

Yawn.

As I said earlier, I did not ask you what naturalism is, I asked you what you mean by "natural" because according to you:

thehomer:
That's just it. If nothing cannot exist, then there must always have been something natural not necessarily the universe.......

.......We see matter coming into existence from natural occurrences. Have you seen matter coming into existence from non-natural incidents?

You believe that "natural" can exist beyond space and time (the universe). In fact it is "a natural occurrence" to you that matter can appear out of non-matter.
Your idea of what is natural seems to include spaceless timeless and immaterial entities. It is only fair to ask you to explain exactly what you mean by "natural".

[size=16pt]For the last time: What exactly do you mean by "natural"?[/size]

You can either answer my question directly or feel free to continue your dance.

wiegraf: Anony... I mean wtf

I'm not even reading, just skimming, but wtf

I mean... Wtf

Wtf wtf wtf

Just ansah d furhgsdkfbd question... U set d furrhbgfjf standards


Wttf wtf

If I were muslim I'd have put a jihad on you by now

Wtf wtff

Jfffekf really? I mean what do you achieve with this nonsense? What??!!!

meh

Mr anony: meh

How many of pages of chicanery? Simple, explain why in your opinion the acts in the op qualify as good to you.

IF U HAVE NO INTENTION OF ANSWERING, YOU SHOULD SHARRAP. THIS NONSENSE YOU'RE PULLING IS THE HEIGHT OF FOLLY, IT MASKS NOTHING. SIMPLY MAKES YOU LOOK LIKE AN IRRATIONAL DISINGENEOUS SLAVE

Then again, it isn't my thread.

wiegraf:

How many of pages of chicanery? Simple, explain why in your opinion the acts in the op qualify as good to you.

IF U HAVE NO INTENTION OF ANSWERING, YOU SHOULD SHARRAP. THIS NONSENSE YOU'RE PULLING IS THE HEIGHT OF FOLLY, IT MASKS NOTHING. SIMPLY MAKES YOU LOOK LIKE AN IRRATIONAL DISINGENEOUS SLAVE

Then again, it isn't my thread.

Are you sure you are on the right thread?

Mr anony:
Are you sure you are on the right thread?

Oh, yeah. My bad, should pay more attention. Imagine the above was posted in the 'is god good thread'.

Will copypasta once I'm behind a proper PC

IT ALL STILL STANDS

wiegraf:

Oh, yeah. My bad, should pay more attention. Imagine the above was posted in the 'is god good thread'.

Will copypasta once I'm behind a proper PC

IT ALL STILL STANDS

Lol, no it doesn't.

Let's test it by applying your comment to thehomer on this thread shall we?

Thehomer, How many of pages of chicanery? Simple, explain what you mean by the word "natural"

IF U HAVE NO INTENTION OF ANSWERING, YOU SHOULD SHARRAP. THIS NONSENSE YOU'RE PULLING IS THE HEIGHT OF FOLLY, IT MASKS NOTHING. SIMPLY MAKES YOU LOOK LIKE AN IRRATIONAL DISINGENEOUS SLAVE

Would that be a fair comment to thehomer here or are you only spurred on by an anti-anony bias?

Mr anony:
Lol, no it doesn't.

Let's test it by applying your comment to thehomer on this thread shall we?


Would that be a fair comment to thehomer here or are you only spurred on by an anti-anony bias?

Errm, yes. How does this apply to thehomer?

K'll be back

wiegraf:

Errm, yes. How does this apply to thehomer?

K'll be back

Read our exchange on this thread.

Mr anony:
You still haven't provided me with what you mean by natural neither has wikipedia.


Yawn.

Then your problem is with the English Language.

Mr anony:
As I said earlier, I did not ask you what naturalism is, I asked you what you mean by "natural" because according to you:


You believe that "natural" can exist beyond space and time (the universe). In fact it is "a natural occurrence" to you that matter can appear out of non-matter.

Where did I say the statement in bold? My point there is pretty clear. I'm simply saying as Kay has pointed out, that if something cannot come from nothing, then nothing never existed.

Mr anony:
Your idea of what is natural seems to include spaceless timeless and immaterial entities. It is only fair to ask you to explain exactly what you mean by "natural".


[size=16pt]For the last time: What exactly do you mean by "natural"?[/size]

You can either answer my question directly or feel free to continue your dance.

Wikipedia has answered your question but you've refused to answer mine. Just pick up a dictionary and look up the definitions within.