With debates gone MR can come back

[Jason78]

What i am currently doing is establishing the absolute necessary need for a non-physical reality.

What's a non-physical reality?

Imaginationland.

[NonXNonExX]

As near as i can tell, a non-physical entity is something that talks through an ass and whose son can walk on water. Is that about right?

[leo]

As near as i can tell, a non-physical entity is something that talks through an ass and whose son can walk on water. Is that about right?

Yes ! He is back !

[Fidel_Castronaut]

What i am currently doing is establishing the absolute necessary need for a non-physical reality.

What's a non-physical reality?

Imaginationland.

Something that is made up to adhere and to and satisfy the cognitive dissonance of the claimant.

[WitchSabrina]

Something that is made up to adhere and to and satisfy the cognitive dissonance of the claimant.

Dude - that's just.......erm........magical!
 :rollin:

[Colanth]

What i am currently doing is establishing the absolute necessary need for a non-physical reality.

Why?  Who cares whether it's necessary?  (Remember - the universe, even though it definitely exists, is not necessary.)  Just prove the existence of a non-physical reality.

If it's necessary, but doesn't exist, so what?  The fact that it's necessary would prove nothing.  ("Necessary" does not mean "exists".)

[the_antithesis]

What i am currently doing is establishing the absolute necessary need for a non-physical reality.

What's a non-physical reality?

And what does non-physical even mean and how does the non physical interact with the physical?

[mendacium remedium]

What i am currently doing is establishing the absolute necessary need for a non-physical reality.

Why?  Who cares whether it's necessary?  (Remember - the universe, even though it definitely exists, is not necessary.)  Just prove the existence of a non-physical reality.

If it's necessary, but doesn't exist, so what?  The fact that it's necessary would prove nothing.  ("Necessary" does not mean "exists".)

Neccesary within the context of our dialouge means a form of existence which must exist by neccesity of it's own existence - or nothing would exist.

There has had to be something, which simply 'just exists'.  There is solidarity among atheists and theists. The theists assert it can not be a physical reality(i am going to go back to the archive and respond to posts soon and explain why). The atheist asserts it must have been physical.

[mendacium remedium]

What i am currently doing is establishing the absolute necessary need for a non-physical reality.

What's a non-physical reality?

Imaginationland.

Imagination land , i would say, is in the belief in an infinite number of universes, where everyone registered on this forum is holding hands and randomly together in unison reciting the entire works of Shakespeare in unison by guessing randomly at words.

[the_antithesis]

Neccesary within the context of our dialouge means a form of existence which must exist by neccesity of it's own existence - or nothing would exist.

Nonsense.

[GurrenLagann]

To say that something necessarily exists is only to say that you cannot think- or in this case, want- to find an explanation for it.

[Colanth]

What i am currently doing is establishing the absolute necessary need for a non-physical reality.

Why?  Who cares whether it's necessary?  (Remember - the universe, even though it definitely exists, is not necessary.)  Just prove the existence of a non-physical reality.

If it's necessary, but doesn't exist, so what?  The fact that it's necessary would prove nothing.  ("Necessary" does not mean "exists".)

Neccesary within the context of our dialouge means a form of existence which must exist by neccesity of it's own existence - or nothing would exist.

That's meaningless babble.  Why not just admit that it's nonsense you made up, forget it and move on?  ("Must exist by necessity of its own existence" pre-supposes that it exists, so that's the fallacy of assuming your conclusion.)

There has had to be something, which simply 'just exists'.

Another mere assertion.  WHY?

There is solidarity among atheists and theists. The theists assert it can not be a physical reality(i am going to go back to the archive and respond to posts soon and explain why). The atheist asserts it must have been physical.

Nope.  Atheists assume that what is, is.  (Which, being a tautology, must be true.)  Anything else is your assertion, not ours.

And not all theists require it to be non-physical.  ("Theist" doesn't mean "Judeo/Christian/Moslem".)

[Colanth]

To say that something necessarily exists is only to say that you cannot think- or in this case, want- to find an explanation for it.

He's saying it in the sense that it must exist for his beliefs to not be nonsense.  It's necessary for his sanity, not for the existence of the universe.  Which is totally irrelevant to the discussion.

[GurrenLagann]

To add to what Colanth said, to say that something contains within itself the necessity/reason for existence is a, strictly,  meaningless statement. It is not only incomprehensible, but nonsensical. And if you're going to say that something can exist without a knowable cause for its existence, you have to admit that you know of no way to show that the universe couldn't fit your description as a necessary thing.

[Hakurei Reimu]

Imagination land , i would say, is in the belief in an infinite number of universes, where everyone registered on this forum is holding hands and randomly together in unison reciting the entire works of Shakespeare in unison by guessing randomly at words.

And yet it has more evidentitary support than your nonsense.