[quote]pat wrote:
wirewound wrote:
kaaleppi wrote:
wirewound wrote:
pat wrote:
wirewound wrote:
Sloth wrote:
My belief in God, isn’t based on scientific evidence, therefore I’ve none to offer. That’s why I call it faith.
Religion is not adequately equipped to deal with beliefs. Science is. Beliefs only go so far. Invariably they can be shown to be in conflict with reality or even themselves.
Religion ideally concerns itself with pre-conceptual reality.
Where’d you dig this up? You have evidence to this statement? LOL!
Religion has no means by which to test the validity of it’s truth claims - science, however, does.
So, faith is not based on empirical testing and logical deduction? I am amazed about the amount of people who think it should be.
Truth claims should not be based on faith. That’s the point. Reality itself is intrinsically knowable via contemplative religion, but it’s parts are best examined by science. Hence, truth claims or beliefs should be based on falsifiable evidence not revelatory proclaimation. Religion’s purview is the examination of the subjective experience of reality, not the intricacies of the objective universe.
What is truth?[/quote]
I never said truth, I said truth claims. You understand the difference, don’t you?
[quote]pat wrote:
Perfectcircle wrote:
It does not matter what science is able to explain or discover. God’s existence is independent of that. Also, the key words hear are “explain” or “discover”. Notice that science cannot create a God-damn thing, everything already exists.
Sorry Pat, but that is a very naive statement…
I don’t see how since it is true…What does science create? Does it not, rather, manipulate variables that already exist?[/quote]
I would say that that is a fairly accurate statement. It is accurate for two reasons; 1) science is based on assumption and theory, which means it is as accurate and factual as it can be at the time with the data it currently has. That means it is situational in nature. So nothing is really fact and that is why theories change as they are proven false. 2) science has no way to measure or define God, so the existence of God or not is irrelevant to science. That is why if God showed himself to man scientists would be the last to know.
[quote]wirewound wrote:
pat wrote:
wirewound wrote:
kaaleppi wrote:
wirewound wrote:
pat wrote:
wirewound wrote:
Sloth wrote:
My belief in God, isn’t based on scientific evidence, therefore I’ve none to offer. That’s why I call it faith.
Religion is not adequately equipped to deal with beliefs. Science is. Beliefs only go so far. Invariably they can be shown to be in conflict with reality or even themselves.
Religion ideally concerns itself with pre-conceptual reality.
Where’d you dig this up? You have evidence to this statement? LOL!
Religion has no means by which to test the validity of it’s truth claims - science, however, does.
So, faith is not based on empirical testing and logical deduction? I am amazed about the amount of people who think it should be.
Truth claims should not be based on faith. That’s the point. Reality itself is intrinsically knowable via contemplative religion, but it’s parts are best examined by science. Hence, truth claims or beliefs should be based on falsifiable evidence not revelatory proclaimation. Religion’s purview is the examination of the subjective experience of reality, not the intricacies of the objective universe.
What is truth?
I never said truth, I said truth claims. You understand the difference, don’t you?
[/quote]
[quote]pat wrote:
wirewound wrote:
pat wrote:
wirewound wrote:
kaaleppi wrote:
wirewound wrote:
pat wrote:
wirewound wrote:
Sloth wrote:
My belief in God, isn’t based on scientific evidence, therefore I’ve none to offer. That’s why I call it faith.
Religion is not adequately equipped to deal with beliefs. Science is. Beliefs only go so far. Invariably they can be shown to be in conflict with reality or even themselves.
Religion ideally concerns itself with pre-conceptual reality.
Where’d you dig this up? You have evidence to this statement? LOL!
Religion has no means by which to test the validity of it’s truth claims - science, however, does.
So, faith is not based on empirical testing and logical deduction? I am amazed about the amount of people who think it should be.
Truth claims should not be based on faith. That’s the point. Reality itself is intrinsically knowable via contemplative religion, but it’s parts are best examined by science. Hence, truth claims or beliefs should be based on falsifiable evidence not revelatory proclaimation. Religion’s purview is the examination of the subjective experience of reality, not the intricacies of the objective universe.
What is truth?
I never said truth, I said truth claims. You understand the difference, don’t you?
Fair enough.[/quote]
I’m not sure it is fair. Every truth claim requires at least one axiomatic premise. Wirewound, can you provide one truth claim that does not rely upon an unproven axiom?
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
pat wrote:
wirewound wrote:
pat wrote:
wirewound wrote:
kaaleppi wrote:
wirewound wrote:
pat wrote:
wirewound wrote:
Sloth wrote:
My belief in God, isn’t based on scientific evidence, therefore I’ve none to offer. That’s why I call it faith.
Religion is not adequately equipped to deal with beliefs. Science is. Beliefs only go so far. Invariably they can be shown to be in conflict with reality or even themselves.
Religion ideally concerns itself with pre-conceptual reality.
Where’d you dig this up? You have evidence to this statement? LOL!
Religion has no means by which to test the validity of it’s truth claims - science, however, does.
So, faith is not based on empirical testing and logical deduction? I am amazed about the amount of people who think it should be.
Truth claims should not be based on faith. That’s the point. Reality itself is intrinsically knowable via contemplative religion, but it’s parts are best examined by science. Hence, truth claims or beliefs should be based on falsifiable evidence not revelatory proclaimation. Religion’s purview is the examination of the subjective experience of reality, not the intricacies of the objective universe.
What is truth?
I never said truth, I said truth claims. You understand the difference, don’t you?
Fair enough.
I’m not sure it is fair. Every truth claim requires at least one axiomatic premise. Wirewound, can you provide one truth claim that does not rely upon an unproven axiom?
[/quote]
No. All truth claims ultimately rely on unproven assumptions. However, that does not mean that all unproven assumptions are equal.
A common underlying assumption we have is that objects have individual identities, or that even we ourselves have independent ‘selves’. Upon a close and uncompromising look at one’s own perception, however, one can realize that this ‘self’ is assumed but never actually found in the contents of our perceptions or thoughts. Similarly, object permanence is never directly experienced.
On the other hand, presupposing a God is not supported by closely observing one’s subjective experience of reality. That is, the existence of a God is a belief that is created post-conceptually - it is a created identity. Therefore, a God-concept is post-self, post object permanence. The farther away from direct experience that conjecture goes, the more unreal or contradictory is the concept. This in itself is not the problem. Many complex concepts are puzzling, paradoxical, and contradictory - and yet useful. The problem is contained in the interjection of a God-concept as pre-self, or fundamentally true, i.e. directly subjectively experienced.
[quote]wirewound wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
pat wrote:
wirewound wrote:
pat wrote:
wirewound wrote:
kaaleppi wrote:
wirewound wrote:
pat wrote:
wirewound wrote:
Sloth wrote:
My belief in God, isn’t based on scientific evidence, therefore I’ve none to offer. That’s why I call it faith.
Religion is not adequately equipped to deal with beliefs. Science is. Beliefs only go so far. Invariably they can be shown to be in conflict with reality or even themselves.
Religion ideally concerns itself with pre-conceptual reality.
Where’d you dig this up? You have evidence to this statement? LOL!
Religion has no means by which to test the validity of it’s truth claims - science, however, does.
So, faith is not based on empirical testing and logical deduction? I am amazed about the amount of people who think it should be.
Truth claims should not be based on faith. That’s the point. Reality itself is intrinsically knowable via contemplative religion, but it’s parts are best examined by science. Hence, truth claims or beliefs should be based on falsifiable evidence not revelatory proclaimation. Religion’s purview is the examination of the subjective experience of reality, not the intricacies of the objective universe.
What is truth?
I never said truth, I said truth claims. You understand the difference, don’t you?
Fair enough.
I’m not sure it is fair. Every truth claim requires at least one axiomatic premise. Wirewound, can you provide one truth claim that does not rely upon an unproven axiom?
No. All truth claims ultimately rely on unproven assumptions. However, that does not mean that all unproven assumptions are equal.
A common underlying assumption we have is that objects have individual identities, or that even we ourselves have independent ‘selves’. Upon a close and uncompromising look at one’s own perception, however, one can realize that this ‘self’ is assumed but never actually found in the contents of our perceptions or thoughts. Similarly, object permanence is never directly experienced.
On the other hand, presupposing a God is not supported by closely observing one’s subjective experience of reality. That is, the existence of a God is a belief that is created post-conceptually - it is a created identity. Therefore, a God-concept is post-self, post object permanence. The farther away from direct experience that conjecture goes, the more unreal or contradictory is the concept. This in itself is not the problem. Many complex concepts are puzzling, paradoxical, and contradictory - and yet useful. The problem is contained in the interjection of a God-concept as pre-self, or fundamentally true, i.e. directly subjectively experienced.[/quote]
Are you taking a stance based on ability to experience or are you merely commenting on the human relationship with unproven concepts? You seem to do both., but I cannot decipher your intent.
[quote]wirewound wrote:
No. All truth claims ultimately rely on unproven assumptions.
[/quote]
Agreed.
Yes. However, assessing their relative value is, by definition, well-neigh impossible. One might try to assess their value by measuring their relative durability. In other words, clearly some “unproven assumptions” endure - and some do not. The “unproven assumption” of God has endured for many, many millenniums - far longer than any working axiom used by contemporary scientists.
We all make billions of “assumptions” at every moment in time…etc. However, I’m not sure I understand your examples. Care to unpack them a little? For instance, how can we even talk about or conceive of a self if the self is assumed and not found in the contents of our perceptions/thoughts??
Let’s take a better example: inductive reasoning/causality. We assume axiomatically - yet cannot prove - that because we set up conditions for, say, a particular bacteria to grow in a petri dish, that if we always provide precisely these conditions, the result will always be the same, and always was the same. This is called inductive reasoning.
However, as Popper argued we cannot prove inductive reasoning to be true in any absolute sense. The inductive reasoning used in our bacteria example is itself a “leap of faith,” an “unprovable assumption” - in other words, an axiom.
Of course, common sense & simple observation might convince you provisionally that the above-mentioned bacteria (under the same exact conditions) will grow again next time, and the next…and the next - and yet, even here: both of these modes (common sense & observation) entail unprovable assumptions: the first assumes a connection between our “common sense” and “reality” - indeed that there is a “reality” - and the second assumes the reliability of our senses in observing, etc…
I know it sounds like madness - and the implications of Popper’s thought are, indeed, alarming. But I have never heard of a particularly convincing refutation (and there are thousands and thousands of nearly rabid attempts) of his central contributions either.
I have to disagree here. I don’t think God is an aprior supposition. I think it’s a supposition born precisely out of - among other things - our “closely observing one’s subjective experience of reality.”
[quote]
That is, the existence of a God is a belief that is created post-conceptually - it is a created identity. Therefore, a God-concept is post-self, post object permanence. The farther away from direct experience that conjecture goes, the more unreal or contradictory is the concept. This in itself is not the problem. Many complex concepts are puzzling, paradoxical, and contradictory - and yet useful. The problem is contained in the interjection of a God-concept as pre-self, or fundamentally true, i.e. directly subjectively experienced.[/quote]
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
wirewound wrote:
No. All truth claims ultimately rely on unproven assumptions.
Agreed.
However, that does not mean that all unproven assumptions are equal.
Yes. However, assessing their relative value is, by definition, well-neigh impossible. One might try to assess their value by measuring their relative durability. In other words, clearly some “unproven assumptions” endure - and some do not. The “unproven assumption” of God has endured for many, many millenniums - far longer than any working axiom used by contemporary scientists.
A common underlying assumption we have is that objects have individual identities, or that even we ourselves have independent ‘selves’. Upon a close and uncompromising look at one’s own perception, however, one can realize that this ‘self’ is assumed but never actually found in the contents of our perceptions or thoughts. Similarly, object permanence is never directly experienced.
We all make billions of “assumptions” at every moment in time…etc. However, I’m not sure I understand your examples. Care to unpack them a little? For instance, how can we even talk about or conceive of a self if the self is assumed and not found in the contents of our perceptions/thoughts??
Let’s take a better example: inductive reasoning/causality. We assume axiomatically - yet cannot prove - that because we set up conditions for, say, a particular bacteria to grow in a petri dish, that if we always provide precisely these conditions, the result will always be the same, and always was the same. This is called inductive reasoning.
However, as Popper argued we cannot prove inductive reasoning to be true in any absolute sense. The inductive reasoning used in our bacteria example is itself a “leap of faith,” an “unprovable assumption” - in other words, an axiom.
Of course, common sense & simple observation might convince you provisionally that the above-mentioned bacteria (under the same exact conditions) will grow again next time, and the next…and the next - and yet, even here: both of these modes (common sense & observation) entail unprovable assumptions: the first assumes a connection between our “common sense” and “reality” - indeed that there is a “reality” - and the second assumes the reliability of our senses in observing, etc…
I know it sounds like madness - and the implications of Popper’s thought are, indeed, alarming. But I have never heard of a particularly convincing refutation (and there are thousands and thousands of nearly rabid attempts) of his central contributions either.
On the other hand, presupposing a God is not supported by closely observing one’s subjective experience of reality.
I have to disagree here. I don’t think God is an aprior supposition. I think it’s a supposition born precisely out of - among other things - our “closely observing one’s subjective experience of reality.”
That is, the existence of a God is a belief that is created post-conceptually - it is a created identity. Therefore, a God-concept is post-self, post object permanence. The farther away from direct experience that conjecture goes, the more unreal or contradictory is the concept. This in itself is not the problem. Many complex concepts are puzzling, paradoxical, and contradictory - and yet useful. The problem is contained in the interjection of a God-concept as pre-self, or fundamentally true, i.e. directly subjectively experienced.
[quote]wirewound wrote:
On the other hand, presupposing a God is not supported by closely observing one’s subjective experience of reality.
[/quote]
That concept is not possible.
This idea is in violation of the Observer Effect, which states that the act of observing itself will affect the phenomenon being observed. So it is not possible to “closely observe one’s subjective experience of reality” without changing that reality. So if the observer changes the observed by the mere act of observation, then the outcome can never be said to be truly subjective.
This is why perception is always reality (within the human experience) and all data obtained from observation is based on fundamental assumptions, not facts.
Yes. However, assessing their relative value is, by definition, well-neigh impossible. One might try to assess their value by measuring their relative durability. In other words, clearly some “unproven assumptions” endure - and some do not. The “unproven assumption” of God has endured for many, many millenniums - far longer than any working axiom used by contemporary scientists.[/quote]
This is not proper condition for holding an assumption as ‘more true’. For example, as individuals, we do not retain ‘magical/mythic’ thinking as we develop. We do not believe ‘the sun follows us’, for instance. Older assumptions are often replaced by newer, more accurate assumptions.
A common underlying assumption we have is that objects have individual identities, or that even we ourselves have independent ‘selves’. Upon a close and uncompromising look at one’s own perception, however, one can realize that this ‘self’ is assumed but never actually found in the contents of our perceptions or thoughts. Similarly, object permanence is never directly experienced.
[quote]We all make billions of “assumptions” at every moment in time…etc. However, I’m not sure I understand your examples. Care to unpack them a little? For instance, how can we even talk about or conceive of a self if the self is assumed and not found in the contents of our perceptions/thoughts??
Let’s take a better example: inductive reasoning/causality. We assume axiomatically - yet cannot prove - that because we set up conditions for, say, a particular bacteria to grow in a petri dish, that if we always provide precisely these conditions, the result will always be the same, and always was the same. This is called inductive reasoning.
However, as Popper argued we cannot prove inductive reasoning to be true in any absolute sense. The inductive reasoning used in our bacteria example is itself a “leap of faith,” an “unprovable assumption” - in other words, an axiom.[/quote]
I’ll go you one farther. Our assumption that there are individually existing entities called ‘bacteria’ is an ‘unprovable assumption’. That is, the concept of ‘bacteria’ and ‘petri dish’ are not contained in our experience of our perceptions - they are created by our minds as useful shortcuts to describe certain SIMILAR, but not exactly the same, experiences.
You will never, ever encounter the ‘same exact conditions’. You recognize this, do you not? Similar conditions, yes. The same exact conditions, no. Hence, we are sometimes surprised when our assumptions do not hold to be true.
[quote[I know it sounds like madness - and the implications of Popper’s thought are, indeed, alarming. But I have never heard of a particularly convincing refutation (and there are thousands and thousands of nearly rabid attempts) of his central contributions either.[/quote]
Popper’s reasoning is superb as far as it goes, it just doesn’t go all the way because it assumes apriori that there IS an objective reality being experienced and that there is object permanence. Popper never examines the nature of subjective awareness itself, and indeed, he shouldn’t be called upon to do so. My point is simply that science and Popper are incapable of examining certain apriori assumptions.
[quote]On the other hand, presupposing a God is not supported by closely observing one’s subjective experience of reality.
I have to disagree here. I don’t think God is an aprior supposition. I think it’s a supposition born precisely out of - among other things - our “closely observing one’s subjective experience of reality.”[/quote]
Closely examining one’s subjective experience of reality will not allow you to even jump to the conclusion that there is an individual, non-interdependently arising self, let alone a God. The existence of a God-concept necessarily arises only after the assumption of a separate self that can be differentiated from the God-concept.[/quote]
[quote]That is, the existence of a God is a belief that is created post-conceptually - it is a created identity. Therefore, a God-concept is post-self, post object permanence. The farther away from direct experience that conjecture goes, the more unreal or contradictory is the concept. This in itself is not the problem. Many complex concepts are puzzling, paradoxical, and contradictory - and yet useful. The problem is contained in the interjection of a God-concept as pre-self, or fundamentally true, i.e. directly subjectively experienced.
^^ would you care to elaborate on this?[/quote]
A self-concept must exist before or concurrently with a God-concept. A ‘self’ cannot be found to be fundamentally evident when one examines one’s own perception and mental formations. References to a self, yes - many, but no actual entity, unconditioned by literally EVERYTHING ELSE in existence, can be found. Hence, when examining one’s own subjective perceptions, no God will be or can be found there either.
Science has proven itself to be much better at post-self, post-conceptual concept manipulation. It struggles very seriously with being non-self-contradictory, does not rely on unfalsifiable input, and is constantly struggling to correct its own errant conclusions. Hence, it is THE preeminent tool for verifying post-conceptual truth claims. In order to exempt the God-concept from such rigorous examination, it must exist pre-conceptually - which it doesn’t. Therefore, then, the only use of a God-concept is to point to a practice of pre-conceptual examination of one’s own direct experience - not as a competitor or replacement for science. Religion is woefully inadequate as a competitor or replacement for science in verifying post-conceptual truth claims, which is unfortunately how it is usually propagated.
[quote]Lorisco wrote:
wirewound wrote:
On the other hand, presupposing a God is not supported by closely observing one’s subjective experience of reality.
That concept is not possible.
This idea is in violation of the Observer Effect, which states that the act of observing itself will affect the phenomenon being observed. So it is not possible to “closely observe one’s subjective experience of reality” without changing that reality. So if the observer changes the observed by the mere act of observation, then the outcome can never be said to be truly subjective.
This is why perception is always reality (within the human experience) and all data obtained from observation is based on fundamental assumptions, not facts.
[/quote]
That’s the point - except what you mean is that the outcome cannot be OBJECTIVE.
Note that the ‘Observer Effect’ pre-assumes that there IS an observer independent of that which is being observed. One’s own perceptions do not support this assumption, only one’s conceptions. Hence, the ‘observer effect’ is post-conceptual, that is, post-self. It does not, nor can address, pre-self or preconceptual awareness.
[quote]kaaleppi wrote:
mbm693 wrote:
I’m an atheist towards god the same way (and for pretty much the same reasons) I’m an atheist towards santa clause.
That is an argument I see often and to tell you the truth, it is a bit dishonest. Ditch it. There is no way you would have posted as many serious posts on a thread about santa clause.[/quote]
I would if people were honestly trying to tell me that santa was real and that I should live my life by Rudolf’s commandments. There’s nothing dishonest about that argument at all. You just don’t want to acknowledge the similarities between santa and god b/c it undermines your “faith”
[quote]pat wrote:
Perfectcircle wrote:
mbm693 wrote:
pat wrote:
God of gaps? That is for people who use God to explain the occurrence of things. I am not espousing the dictum that if we don’t understand something God made it mysteriously happen. It does not matter what science is able to explain or discover.
God’s existence is independent of that. Also, the key words hear are “explain” or “discover”. Notice that science cannot create a God-damn thing, everything already exists.
If you don’t discount them or investigate there availability, how then, can you relegate them to bullshit status? The fallacy is more your logic applied rather than the event itself. You can’t know if you don’t bother to try.
Which also goes to debunk your assertion of “No evidence”. It is rather, you don’t feel like considering the evidence. That is a rather different thing than no evidence what so ever. Don’t try that in court, you’ll lose.
At least Orion’s attack on causality was more challenging. However, here you go. What caused the Big Bang (if there were such an event, last I checked it was still a theory, an unprovable one at that, yet you have faith in it…interesting).
What existed before the big bang? What would have caused the events that proceeded the big bang and what were they made of.
Currently you are arguing from the point that everything that exists came from nothing. I am arguing that everything came from something. On the surface which makes more sense?
As I’ve patiently explained to you already, there are things that happen in this world that are unexplainable, but that doesn’t make them miracles from god… it makes them unexplainable.
Do you know of any miracles where god himself said “I’m god and I did this and it is a miracle.” If you haven’t, I don’t know why you would call them miracles instead of unexplained events. There is no good reason to make the jump.
Wow. You completely didn’t read my argument. Seriously, I’m sure there is a middle school within driving distance of your home. I’m sure one of the teachers there would be happy to tutor you.
I like to keep my uncaused events as simple as possible. god, as he is normally defined, would be infinitely more complex and powerful than the big bang so it makes less sense to choose god as your uncaused event.
I’ve got beers to drink, so I’m not going to research the big bang. I’m pretty sure it’s the best theory we have right now, but it wouldn’t shock me if I’m wrong. The point is that whatever caused the universe would be less powerful and complicated than god, so it doesn’t make sense to play the god card here.
Getting away from the points we’ve been arguing about: Why is it that you are so interested in putting down science? I suspect that you, like many people, think that putting down science somehow strengths the case for religion. It doesn’t.
Even you completely eviscerated science all you would have done is eviscerated science. Religion would have no more cause to fill the gap than any other superstition.
I think I see where this comes from. As science advances, it chips away at the things where religion used to have dominion. It’s a one way assault unfortunately. When religion tries to dictate to science it is a colossal fail (Galileo anyone?).
… Anyway, just rambling. Bring on the flames :).
P.S.
WHY WON’T YOU HELP ME WITH THE MONSTERS UNDER MY BED??? THEY’RE FUCKING SCARY AND I REALLY NEED SOMEONE TO PROVE THEY DON’T EXIST!!!
Strong arguement …
Are you serious?! You thought that was a strong argument. It was all over the place and inconsistent as hell. A strong argument would be one where the drawn conclusions follows directly from its premises. Nothing in this is deductive, it’s more a bunch of random thoughts.
[/quote]
Are you kidding?!?!?! I fucking murdered you with this post. Crushed all your arguments in a public forum. You might not ever live down this kind of an ass whipping.
I’m bad at logic? You can’t follow the simple arguments I’ve laid out and patiently explained for you and somehow that’s my fault? I think you’re just getting angry b/c I’m owning your ass all over the internet.
[quote]pat wrote:
You are awfully arrogant for being as bad at logic as you are. You conglomerate a bunch of random points and call that mess of shit an argument.
I don’t see where they created matter of nothing. Rather they manipulated already existing matter into a new form. While interesting, it is not much different than what science has been doing for centuries.
Were the clones alive or not? If I were you, I’d go ahead an concede this point. You can’t dig out of a hole.
So? Dolly was alive. I never said she wasn’t What part of her was created from nothing? Also, doesn’t cloned mean “copied”? How does copying a life suddenly mean we created a life out of nothing?
[/quote]
Cloned means cloned. Dictionary.com … it’s not that hard
Your imaginary sky god didn’t create any of these raw materials either.
What are you going to do when a scientist animates an inert cell? It might happen tomorrow. Seems to me that it’ll thoroughly shatter your ridiculous world view. You’ll have to admit that life is just a chemical reaction, with no room for a soul anywhere in there.
You’re the stupidest person on the internet. People still die from cancer because science hasn’t advanced far enough to save them all. Luckily, we don’t have a god like yours around to create newer more horrible diseases that we have no defense against. I mean, if he made cancer, what the fuck else is up his sleeve?
Ditto…
You’re not even responding to my arguments, you’re just parroting what you’ve already said. I feel like I’m arguing with you, and your echo.
You keep insisting miracles exist, but you don’t want to discuss any in particular. You just want me to experience one like that’s even possible. And even if I did, it would just be an unexplained event unless god was there and he told me specifically told me that it was him and that what had just happened was in fact a miracle.
No. That’s some of the worst reasoning I’ve ever encountered.
god doesn’t have to exist for it to be unlikely for him to exist.
Let me put this in terms even a child can understand.
You’re 7 years old and you hear a noise under your bed. It’s really unlikely that it’s a monster, it’s probably just the cat. But since it’s only unlikely that it’s a monster, that means the monster must exist. After all, arguing that it’s unlikely that it’s a monster means that it most definitely is a monster. Sure the cat would make a better explanation, but you can’t prove that it’s not a monster, and the burden of proof is on you to prove it isn’t, so it must be a monster.
Well isn’t a that very careful non-answer? Are you running for office or something? You don’t want to answer the question because you don’t want to be held to the same standard you hold atheists/agnostics to. The sooner you concede this point the sooner you’ll stop looking like a dumb-shit on the internet
[quote]Sloth wrote:
mbm693 wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
just as an atheist does not take it on faith that God does not exist.
He doesn’t rely on faith?! But, you already said he can never have evidence of God’s non-existence. So, without such evidence, he must have faith that there is no God. There’s a saying about many an Atheist losing their faith in foxholes. When, an atheist loses their faith, they pray.
I’m an atheist towards god the same way (and for pretty much the same reasons) I’m an atheist towards santa clause.
Based on your logic above, should I believe in Santa Clause too?
I wouldn’t know, as I haven’t lived your life. Personally, I haven’t had a Santa Clause type of experience. Just religious experiences that lead me to my Christian faith.
PS. Thanks for the link. But, you missed the point, I think.
[/quote]
I got the point, I just hate that atheists in foxholes quote.
I’m confused as to why living my life would be a prerequisite for applying your logic in this situation. Logic is the same for everyone, and it is either correct or it isn’t. Can you elaborate on this further?
The link leads to the true story of someone else’s religious experience. God told Mr. Huger that he (god) didn’t exist. What makes your experience more valid than his?
[quote]mbm693 wrote:
Sloth wrote:
mbm693 wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
just as an atheist does not take it on faith that God does not exist.
He doesn’t rely on faith?! But, you already said he can never have evidence of God’s non-existence. So, without such evidence, he must have faith that there is no God. There’s a saying about many an Atheist losing their faith in foxholes. When, an atheist loses their faith, they pray.
I’m an atheist towards god the same way (and for pretty much the same reasons) I’m an atheist towards santa clause.
Based on your logic above, should I believe in Santa Clause too?
I wouldn’t know, as I haven’t lived your life. Personally, I haven’t had a Santa Clause type of experience. Just religious experiences that lead me to my Christian faith.
PS. Thanks for the link. But, you missed the point, I think.
I got the point, I just hate that atheists in foxholes quote.
I’m confused as to why living my life would be a prerequisite for applying your logic in this situation. Logic is the same for everyone, and it is either correct or it isn’t. Can you elaborate on this further?
The link leads to the true story of someone else’s religious experience. God told Mr. Huger that he (god) didn’t exist. What makes your experience more valid than his?
[quote]mbm693 wrote:
Sloth wrote:
mbm693 wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
just as an atheist does not take it on faith that God does not exist.
He doesn’t rely on faith?! But, you already said he can never have evidence of God’s non-existence. So, without such evidence, he must have faith that there is no God. There’s a saying about many an Atheist losing their faith in foxholes. When, an atheist loses their faith, they pray.
I’m an atheist towards god the same way (and for pretty much the same reasons) I’m an atheist towards santa clause.
Based on your logic above, should I believe in Santa Clause too?
I wouldn’t know, as I haven’t lived your life. Personally, I haven’t had a Santa Clause type of experience. Just religious experiences that lead me to my Christian faith.
PS. Thanks for the link. But, you missed the point, I think.
I got the point, I just hate that atheists in foxholes quote.
I’m confused as to why living my life would be a prerequisite for applying your logic in this situation. Logic is the same for everyone, and it is either correct or it isn’t. Can you elaborate on this further?
The link leads to the true story of someone else’s religious experience. God told Mr. Huger that he (god) didn’t exist. What makes your experience more valid than his?
What makes mine more valid than his? The one right off the top of my head is that I’ve only been able to experience my experiences. So, I’ve been able to validate my own experiences, for myself.
[quote]mbm693 wrote:
I’m bad at logic? You can’t follow the simple arguments I’ve laid out and patiently explained for you and somehow that’s my fault? I think you’re just getting angry b/c I’m owning your ass all over the internet.
[/quote]
Yes, you are terrible at them. They are inconsistent and all over the map.
You’re a legend in your own mind.
So if I went on dictionary.com they will have the definition of the word ‘cloned’ as cloned? LOL!!! That’s brilliant. You’re a regular comodian. Last I heard, copying something and creating something are completely different things. By your logic, if I play a Beatles song, it must mean I wrote it too.
What is an “inert cell”? Are you just making things up like in a scrabble game? Among all the properties of a cell one of them is that it is either living, or dead.
I am pleased to see you admit that life component was already present in any cloned living thing.
Hang on, I need my hanky to deal with your insult…Perhaps in lieu of an argument? Because the existance and treatment of cancer has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not God exists…How hard, really, is that to understand?
Experience would be key. You can google them all you want if you are interested in reading about them.
LOL! LOL!LOL!LOL! I can’t stop laughing. Oh almighty guru, fill me with your wisdom! LOL!
[quote]
Actually, they’re kind of your problem. Do you have faith they exist, or can you prove that they don’t?
I don�??t give a damn if they exist or not. I hope for your sake they don’t or at least they turn out to be friendly.
Well isn’t a that very careful non-answer? Are you running for office or something? You don’t want to answer the question because you don’t want to be held to the same standard you hold atheists/agnostics to. The sooner you concede this point the sooner you’ll stop looking like a dumb-shit on the internet
Minor Edits[/quote]
Allow me to be clear. I don’t give a shit if you have monsters under your bed or not. I don’t know if they exist and I don’t care. How in the flying fuck, does that in anyway, shape or form lend strength to your argument that their is no God.
That makes about as much sense as saying “I am thinking of the color green, therefore there must be no God.”
You are espousing what is called a “Red Herring”, a diversionary tactic from actual point and a logical fallacy of which you display many…I am glad your not on my side of the issue.
[quote]wirewound wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
wirewound wrote:
On the other hand, presupposing a God is not supported by closely observing one’s subjective experience of reality.
That concept is not possible.
This idea is in violation of the Observer Effect, which states that the act of observing itself will affect the phenomenon being observed.
So it is not possible to “closely observe one’s subjective experience of reality” without changing that reality. So if the observer changes the observed by the mere act of observation, then the outcome can never be said to be truly subjective.
This is why perception is always reality (within the human experience) and all data obtained from observation is based on fundamental assumptions, not facts.
That’s the point - except what you mean is that the outcome cannot be OBJECTIVE.
[/quote]
Yes, I meant objective, thanks for the correction.
I’m not following how this applies to the idea of God?
My point is that God can be validated to a large extent in the same subjective manner sciences uses. Which means you cannot validate God outside of the human experience just like anything you want to study as a human by definition is still inside the human experience. As such, individual experiences of God are valid.
[quote]mbm693 wrote:
kaaleppi wrote:
mbm693 wrote:
I’m an atheist towards god the same way (and for pretty much the same reasons) I’m an atheist towards santa clause.
That is an argument I see often and to tell you the truth, it is a bit dishonest. Ditch it. There is no way you would have posted as many serious posts on a thread about santa clause.
I would if people were honestly trying to tell me that santa was real and that I should live my life by Rudolf’s commandments. There’s nothing dishonest about that argument at all. You just don’t want to acknowledge the similarities between santa and god b/c it undermines your “faith” [/quote]
It is dishonest because you wrote it, you are weaving a story about yourself that is to your liking. You exhibit very strong negative feelings towards religion, it is very plain to see. And there is nothing wrong whit that, I’m sure you have good reasons, just be honest about it.
My “faith” is best defined as agnosticism, I think. And yes, I have a positive attitude towards religion in general. I don’t like preachers, though.