Yes it does, I'm sorry but you are completely mistaken with that conclusion. My existence certainly does constitute evidence for the existence of my god. Read that again, please. I have presented my evidence, please stop misunderstanding it. Or present "scientific evidence" that I can't claim my god exists; as I've said, I am aware that I exist, and that is all the evidence required, perhaps not where your "understanding" of the term is concerned, but I don't need to consider what you, or anyone thinks "god" is, only what I think, ipso facto.
That's OK. I don't understand why you're saying you "don't understand". What don't you understand, I thought it was as obvious as breathing...? Maybe start again: when you say "existence of a god". what do you mean? What do you think I mean when I use a phrase like that? Or did you miss the part where I claimed: "there is no requirement for me to believe, or even to understand what you mean with that word" - you know, the "G" word.
I don't understand how your existence constitutes evidence for the existence of your god. Whatever meaning of the word god you want is irrelevant to me since I can't see how your existence constitutes evidence of his/ its/ her existence.
So that makes it a personal subjective thing, which isn't evidence to anyone else. And you're haranguing Fraggle because he (and I) can't understand your subjective experience? Way to go.
Of course it's a personal subjective thing, how could it be anything else? You're saying that I can't, by existing, provide evidence to anyone but myself - of that existence? That's what I would say is the case, and always has been the case. If someone's feeling harangued, it isn't because I'm doing any haranguing. How long does it usually take you to understand the following: "I do not need to believe what anyone else has to say about my existence, since it's mine, and therefore (ipso facto) that is entirely up to me and my existence". So you saying: "it isn't evidence to anyone else", follows logically from the above - of course it isn't - it's evidence to the only one that matters: me.
So you're also using your own personal definition of evidence.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Evidence which you claimed (falsely as it turns out) to have "presented" to Fraggle...
Evidence of what? Irrelevant. You claimed to have presented evidence to Fraggle. You have since admitted that your evidence is purely subjective, and that it's not evidence to anyone else. Very strange definition of "evidence".
That is my point. The "ipso facto" argument specifically, the scientific method in general and the scientific community called SciForums require a consensus. A majority or near-majority of the community must agree on definitions and the validity of both evidence and reasoning, before a statement is accepted and the discussion or argument is permitted to move forward. This is why I stressed the terms "unremarkable" and "uncontroversial" repeatedly: that's what consensus is all about. You can't open a topic on a science board and claim a consensus by citing "ipso facto" and then say it's a "personal subjective thing." That's not science. And that is your problem and that's why your problem is not going to go away by you casually shrugging it off. We, the other members of this community, at the very least, do not find your reasoning valid, and demand that you explain it to us before we will let this matter rest. It could be that we also disagree with your definitions, something that is yet to be determined since your definition of "my god" may be the root of this controversy and you have refused to tell us what it means in your own writing. I don't think we find your evidence invalid, since the only evidence you present is your existence and that is neither remarkable nor controversial. It's your reasoning we want explained. To say, "I exist therefore a god exists," is not and never has been accepted by the consensus of scientists as a valid argument. As I noted, the fundamental theory upon which all science is based is: the natural universe is a closed system. It follows as a corollary--or ipso facto, to use the phrase properly--that no gods can exist as the meddlesome supernatural creatures they are invariably portrayed to be, since outside forces cannot act upon a closed system. I don't know how the moderator of another subforum would deal with your assertion. But regardless of the point you're trying to make--whatever it is--on the Linguistics board I'm concerned with language and you're using language improperly. If your final words on the subject are to say this is all a misunderstanding because you thought we all knew you were being personal and subjective, then fine. I hope in the future you'll be more careful to avoid such misunderstandings.
I would say anyone, whether or not they think they're a scientist, would believe that they exist though. Therefore, because they exist, they can see perhaps as I do, that this leads to the existence of a god, ipso facto. That is, the thing I perceive as that which does not have any definition than the one I give it subjectively, and do not need to apply any other definition to than my own subjective one - that thing. From an objective, or group perspective, I would have to presume this ability in others, or actually see the same thing in others, in some manner. Perhaps talking and trying to relate amongst a group, this perception (subjective though it is), might lead me to understand why I see it that way, and why others might think what they think. Like agreeing on the fact the sun is up, or it's raining - these are subjectively related experiences, as to others, so to myself. Explanations for why the sun exists, why it rains and so on, are objective, but the explanations' existence has required a lot of subjective experience, and a lot of discussion and agreement. I don't need to do all that to draw a breath, or see something like a sunrise. But you immediately presume the word "god" means something external (a force) that can have an effect on a 'closed system', whatever that might be, which logically and scientifically doesn't happen. But logically I exist, and logically, I am not an external force, and nor am I a closed system. Nor is anyone else, logically. No, I think you have a restricted kind of idea, of a certain subjective experience and what it might mean. A conditioned reflex to certain ideas, or an idea, specifically. Often this reflex response is triggered by a one-syllable word that starts with "g". Or that's been my experience with it. P.S. don't you have a headache yet?
Subjective experience? I suppose so. I cannot see how my existence proves, or even indicates, the existence of a god.
But I have presented evidence; I claim the evidence is quite easily accessible to anyone, it's as easy to see as, well, as seeing is. I claim that I can see the evidence, and so can anyone. You can hear it too, among one or two other ways. P.S. I'm fairly sure there are other words for it, apart from that troublesome "g" one. I sometimes call it: "being awake".
Since I've already said that for me it doesn't follow then how can you claim that the evidence is accessible to everyone? Since it doesn't follow for me (and I don't assume I'm unique) then there must be others for whom it doesn't follow: therefore this "accessibility" is non-existent for some.
That doesn't follow? I've seen a lot of other people in my lifetime, all of whom have appeared to be as capable of seeing and hearing this thing as I am. It's like how you can tell someone is alive; how someone who isn't alive anymore looks "dead", you know? You must have seen a dead body at some stage - even a dead animal or a pet that you remember being "alive"?
