Defeating Varieties of Atheistic Arguments

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

From original post establishing thread topic

"There is so much testimony from great philosophers and scientists about a category (God) that explains all other categories, and if a person is not interested it seems to indicate that a person is non-philosophical – in other words if the category gets too big that it makes me small – well- that’s enough philosophy, that’s enough science, that’s enough investigation – they lose their nerve – their philosophical enquiry gets blunted by envy."

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Why is it not relevant?
You have this absurd notion that all atheists have a belief in the non-existence of God.

Noted.

Where do you get the notion that I have such a belief? I don't. I am merely an atheist - I do not have a belief in the existence of God.
I am not one who goes so far as to believe in the non-existence of God.

Yes, thanks.

If I hadn't actually stepped foot in China - would I still believe it exists? No - there is no "belief" about it. There is a weight of evidence that makes the probability of China actually existing being high enough to be called a "fact". There is no religious-level of "belief" (blind faith) involved - and is merely just a probability of objective reality.
This evidence would, however, all be 2nd hand to me - through friends, word of mouth, and various forms of media (t.v., radio, literature etc).
But subconsciously I have weighed up the probability that China does exist based on the available evidence and found it to be worthy of factual status.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

bravo

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Sarkus

Perhaps its because they keep showing up on the "defeating varieties of atheistic arguments thread"

Well why are you on this thread then if you hae no argument to offer why god doesn't exist?

 

P1. Testimony establishes credibility
P2 Credibility grants ability to apply epistemology
C Item X exists.

Hmmmmm...you sure you have the title of this thread right?

If you came out of med school and couldn't measure a pulse you'd be a j@ck@$$.

At any rate, of course someone can tell you something false or miscommunicate knowledge. However, theistic epistemology relies ONLY on hearsay. A physics professor can teach you that water is more dense than engine oil and you can test that yourself and prove him wrong with cold hard physical evidence.

I told you, I was a salesperson. My first large sale was US1.6M in laptops with NO stock to demo, NO stock for the customer to test their specialized app on, NO stock of a new line of laptop to even see if their GM liked it aesthetically. The point? I will sell you a commodity without you needing to test drive it.

The real world is about money, if the customer is dumb enough to NOT test drive a car (or whatever) and still willing to buy, heck I'd sell em beachfront property in Abu Dabi if they want. This comparison is not parallel in any way to your premise.

You titled the thread "defeating varieties of athiestic arguments". Why complain when they show you that you can't? Keep in mind that a number of athiests went thru religious training for various lengths of time before finally renouncing religion. They at LEAST have understanding and knowledge of teachings up to where they left off (first communion, confirmation, even theological studies and ordination). You ASSUME that athiests have no experience in religion (another fallacy).

Well read maybe?

Yep, the "John Q. Public" nick is english, hence...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

No lightee, you seemed to allude that everyone else stole it from India and somehow us "less read" people wouldn't understand what your grand words "epistemology and ontology" were. Epistemology and ontology would have the same definition in whatever language, so why even bring up the sanskrit link?

Simple enough to prove by simulating a vacuum. Controlled lab experiments to compare with space events have been possible for quite a while. I love the fact that you're counting on a biiiiiiiiiiiiiiiig rooouuuuund number to try to cause intimidation.

Never said that. YOU implied that it is IMpossible that unanswered questions and curiosity cannot exist without each other. I just stated that it is possible that they can be unrelated. For example the scientist that is just good at physics and decides to simply make money discovering answers to questions by working for CERN rather than having any curiousity about anything.

What in Hell's bathroom is this? This explanation was about someone blindly BELIEVING that 100% of the water was poisoned...and NOT testing it on a fly or a lab rat. Or even a simple centrifuge. How about a distiller to purify it? You were counting on semantics here.

I also sense a lack of epistemology of the scientific process. :bugeye:

When did i ever say "god is false"? I'm challenging your arguments. Such as they are.

1. Lightee, honey, sweetie, baby...buying a car (a scientific product) cannot be compared to believing in a god (a product of faith).

2. Following from #1: Relying on senses is a function of logic. If you can feel it, it is bouncy; if you can smell it, it is chocolate

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

, if you can see it, then you must put on your D&G shades, if you can hear it, the engine must be working. etc etc. just as odd examples. Can you SEE/SMELL/TASTE/TOUCH/HEAR god? And voices in your head don't count. The air doesn't count. The sea doesn't count. Those are not god.

What you may be confusing the five senses for is the adrenaline and endorphins that theists generate during their various ceremonies. Yes that's a belief, but I have proper epistemology for that.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

3. Of course there are physical tests for perceiving an electron. JJ Thompson and Ernest Rutherford would disagree with you. And you're just going to jump on my case and say "testimony! testimony!". Unlike YOU, physicists and even the learned lay-person can duplicate these experiments and see for themselves. Believing that god exists with no physical evidence and no experiments is completely an act of faith, and trying to make your argument concrete with the words "testimony" "epistemology" and "ontology" is a herculean effort destined to fail.

 

HEY HEY HEY...don't be stealin' my bon mots

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

(lol)

Page 2:

 

Firstly, if you want to restrict your counters to only those arguments from atheists that have a belief in the non-existence of god - then you need to be more clear in the thread.

Secondly, you stated in your second post on this thread: "As far as this thread is concerned, however, it is an opportunity to examine the application of logic by atheists"

So please do tell me where my application of logic (by an atheist) is wrong in not having a belief that a god exists?

 

Enterprise-D

Actually if you read what I say it is more like
P1 - by hearing testimony a person establishes a credible impressionof the source
P2 - On the strength of the source's credibility one may be inspired to apply the epistemology
P3 - if the epistemology is actually bonafide it grants the ontological goal.
P4 - having arrived at the point of ontology one is then able to determine the actual validity/invalidity of the before mentioned testimony, credibility and epistemology

Yes but sometimes I wonder whether people read anything more than the title

Similar evidence exists in theistic epistemology - like for instance if I claim to love god but am hopelessly swayed by the transient nature of ephemeral material opulence it can be understood that my actions don't follow my claims.
You might say it is hearsay, but then wouldn't anyone who has not grasped the epistemology of anything (not just theistic knowledge) say the same thing? Like for instance th e high school drop out vs electrons?

There's a difefrence between selling new computers and second hand cars - regardless though, it doesn't seem to indicate that you didn't lather people in persuasiveness - on the contrary it seems that you more than likely did.

The point is that the customer is
1-not willing to buy the car unless it is proven that it runs well by the use of logic - in other wods you would have to pull out a blackboard and chalk or something and establish by logic that it works (of course you can sell someone stool on the footpath with persuasion - thats another thing)
2- he is also not willing to go for a test drive.
The result is that the salesman will say "Sorry we do not do business that way"

Again, if you read what was there, you would see that I was departing from the point after deconstructing atheistic arguments - you don't need to prove theism to defeat atheism - thats the whole point of this thread - someone offers an atheistic argument and it gets deconstructed in the said fashion.

Like for instance you ae offering this argument
P1 - atheists have previous experience going to church
P2 - going to church establishes theistic epistemology
c - going to church does not establish epstemology in everyone

Actually I would agree with that - attending a place of worship, and going through some of the rituals etc, while not detrimental to t he establishment of epistemology, it certainly requires something more
Just like

P1 - university drop outs have previous experience going to uni
P2 - going to uni establishes epistemology
c - going to university does not establish epistemology in everyone

In otherwords, is it sufficient to determine whether one has fully approached the given epistemology simply because they have attended the formalities/socialities of the institution?

Actually not even that, because I haven't studied it.


No lightee, you seemed to allude that everyone else stole it from India and somehow us "less read" people wouldn't understand what your grand words "epistemology and ontology" were. Epistemology and ontology would have the same definition in whatever language, so why even bring up the sanskrit link?

I only brought it up because others, perhaps not you, were complaining that I was bandying the words "epistemology" and "ontolgy" around - so I gave them some background info why I am using these words - as for the cultural heritage of the world - well its not really relevant to this thread at the moment - but I think its not greek, in case you are interested to know my opinions

Then instead of proving the uniformity of time and space at a distance of some random collection of integers that you find more attractive, now you have to prove that a controlled vacuum atmosphere exists at the same distance- and all in the absence of exhibiting any curiousity too, since you insist that science isn't driven by curiousity.

Such a scientist wouldn't work in research then - perhaps he could work punching numbers into administration files or sweeping the floor - but I would offer that there is a distinction between an actual scientist who is researching and someone who has gone through the formalities of higher education to pay for their baby's pooey nappies

Exactly - blind disbelief implies all of this - just like a person blindly disbelieves in god despite never applying the relevant epistemology to determining the validity/invalidity of the claim

So you don't think god and the epistemologies that lead to perceiving god are false?

I can now see what techniques you used to sell your computers - maybe you should have stuck to retail instead of philosophy

So in other words the logic of examining the epistemology of cooking a pizza enables you to eat a pizza, even before coming to the point of applying the epistemology?

You are confusing the mental idea of acquiring something with actually acquiring it (and to think you accuse me of listening to voices in my head)

The point is that an electron is invisible and its movements are determined by the trail it emits while passing through a gas (at least that is one method) - to come to this point of directly perceiving an electron it requires a substantial level of epistemology - if one lacks that (like the famous high school drop out) one wil say things like "Believing that an electron exists with no physical evidence and no experiments is completely an act of faith, and trying to make your argument concrete with the words "testimony" "epistemology" and "ontology" is a herculean effort destined to fail

 

Is it logical to test the logic of something that doesn't exist? If you don't actualy have an argument why god doesn't exist, but insist on staying at the point "I have never met god" this thread is not for you.

I've devoted an entire thread to that - its in the epistemology thread (but for some reason you don't want to go there) - in short though the answer is - because you have not applied the relevant epistemology

 

wow you are still coming out with the irrational and inane.
a few weeks back it was your not qualified, to know this or that, and now it you dont have the right epistemology, just more pseudo- mumbo jumbo BS.
I cant wait to read some of your other stuff just for the humour. thanks for the laugh.

 

qualification and knowledge are what epistemology deals with - if you gain nothing from your visits to this site at least you will improve your vocab

 

Strawman. The thread is not about the logic of the thing in question but of the arguments one uses to reach their conclusions.

One can quite happily define a god that is logically possible - e.g. anything that exists outside the realm of the material or outside the universe.
But this is the logic of a concept - not of the argument supporting belief or non-belief in it. They are separate matters entirely.

Why is it not? I am an atheist - my "atheistic arguments" are as up to scrutiny as anyone else's.

If you want a thread to just be for, or relate to, the "I believe god does not exist" variety of atheist - then please state that in the thread opener.

Ah yes - your answer to everything.

 

Sarkus

Actually this thread is about atheists who have an argument why god doesn't exist, such as "God doesn't exist because ........"

Because it is better dealt with in the thread which deals specifically with the process of knowing god

I would have thought it would have been obvious to a person who actually reads the opening post (which I am coming to understand is quite a rare phenomena on this forum)

So now it is not rational to direct a person who's stance is "I have never seen" to a thread that deals with the process of seeing?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Burying my original Ps in a longer set of Ps does not invalidate the illogic of your C (or P4 as I assume P4 was supposed to be). You have no physical evidence. Epistemology means squat without it.

Yeah we do, but your title sets the mood for the debate. That's why we're winning.

Why can't rich people love their god? Do you then assume Bill Gates isn't a theist?

(Correct me if I'm wrong but I think he is).

The origins of your "knowledge" are unprovable and a product of imagination. Electrons can be proven to anyone.

My points were all logical in the sale. For example
1. Laptop specs exceed their software required spec.
2. Logistically unsound to acquire another provider since my company owned most of their service agreements.
3. Laptops were constructed with commonality of parts hence swapping parts to facilitate downed machines would be easy.

These may seem persuasive, but all unchallengable logical points are.

"Persuasiveness" to me entails minor bribery such as taking the client for drinks or telling her that her breasts seem unusually full today.

You're a repetitive guy huh. Repetition serves theists well.

Salespersons will sell you anything. They will not pass up a chance at a commission check simply because you don't test drive the car. A new car can be sold totally via logic - similar to a laptop. Anyone with a Cost-Benefit calculation tool will tell you that. A new car will perform to factory specification. A used car (which you did not specify before) LOGICALLY must be sold via test driving. However, benchmark tools exist for cars (measuring the then state of oil/gas consumption, wear on tires, body structure etc), and if the used car sales company has access to these, they can sell used cars via logic without test driving as well.

Um..you are trying to disprove athiesm (a conclusion based on logical observation) with philosophy (a school of thought processing). In trying to disprove a logical observation, it is highly doubtful that you can do so with imagination. You may give rise to thoughts of other possibilities, but this in no way disproves athiesm. (In reading back I think I say it best here).

You conveniently left out that I mentioned that some athiests have more theological training than simply going to church. I'll skip that one til you refine it.

Very clever ruse lightee. This one is the reason why I took a while to respond

(linking to your church Ps and C)
Attending church services amount to exactly 52 hours a year. Actually let's add an extra 2 hours for each special service (New Years, Easter, Christmas). That's 58 hours. Then the general knowledge is recycled.

Attending a university for a year equates to (estimate here from my own experience) is 8 hours a week by three semesters of 3 months. That's 288 hours of professor (and lab) time. I'll even leave out the private study and homework.

*Before responding, please keep in mind that YOUR position on epistemology is based on lectures and credibility. I'm just using an equivalent comparison above.

This unfair comparison is exactly why i included atheist theologians or athiests who were originally in ordination training. They'd have better epistemology on why using logic to validate faith, or INvalidate a logical position is impossible. On the flip side, you can easily see that more epistemology is gained by the university drop out in one year, than by the theist (or athiest) who attends church in one year.

Hm...you berate me for your assumption that i have no epistemological knowledge of religion, yet turn around and try to argue about the car, the laptops, electrons etc with no epistemology of electronics, physics etc?

Come now lightee...let's be honest. You are bandying the words about aren't you? You can tell us

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I believe (with enough epistemology) that theists resort to sciency sounding words to add credibility (ah the credibility thing again) to their claims. This is perhaps how "Scientology" came about. Nevertheless...

Our first clue was the number of times they occur in each of your posts. Recall: a good method of debating is to use repetition. Repetition induces the instinctive reaction of belief.

Our next clue is your insistence that "epistemology" otherwise knows as "the origin of knowledge" is proof. How does a man come to know something? As a child man knows stuff that he is told. As an adult, more realistic factors (like proofs) must come into play. You have answered NOTHING by insisting on proper epistemology of religion or god because epistemology is a process of THOUGHT. It proves no existence.

Ontology is the philosophy behind existence. Ontology is also a school of THOUGHT. Once more, thinking does not in and of itself bring about proof. Similarly brooding on existence does not cause Item X to manifest or provide proof of manifestation. (and here)

Another clue is your alluding to an exotic culture. Whether or not Indian culture included philosophies such as these, they mean the same. Lending credibility (credibility again) to your terms by linking it to sanskrit through the word "translations" is of zero value. You'd know that were you thinking logically.

As I have stated, philosophy has no way of empirical proof (see any reknowned encyclopedia). Using philosophy (a thought process) to prove god (a product of a thought process) is self-fuelling. Your entire argument has a shaky foundation of hearsay and imagination. I've said this before, I can't fault you or tell you what to believe. I do fault you for trying to convert people and imposing your beliefs on others and becoming angry and uppity when we pose more logical ideas, that you can't disprove.

Um...? Controlled simply means that the vacuum doesn't kill everyone in the room and it is uncontaminated by EARTH factors (like TV cathode rays). It is a reasonable

assumption that a vacuum that has an absence of relevant radiation will provide the same result anywhere. Plus if you like they can generate any known radiation you want in a lab.

ONCE again...science never states to know absolutely. Theists however seems to think they do.

AND lightee, I never insisted that science isn't driven by curiousity. You insist that it wholly is. I simply suggested that there may be scientists that do it for money.

You obviously haven't wielded much money in your life have you? A logical individual knowing he's good at something would definitely want to be paid a lot of money for it. Lightee where are you from? I'm pretty sure you're in a capitalist country. You ought to know better than that. Children are curious. Adults are realistic. Adults other than you i mean.

Crap coated with semantics. There is nothing for a mortal to apply epistemology on in theistic beliefs. Water is something physical to test.

I never said they were true, believable or credible either.

Please put the above in your own "list of insults" thread. It is beneath me.

Why are you using a simplistic invention (a product of chemistry), to compare to a god (a product of faith)? And why this needlessly complex way of saying: "The logic of examining the origins of knowing how to cook a pizza enables you to eat it, even before you DO cook it". (I don't know HOW you got that from that section of my post because it was MEANT as 'abbreviated' sarcasm).

How about a request: eliminate the words "epistemology", "ontology" and "apply" and their derivatives. Use synonyms and see if your arguments are any more effective.

Ah...you then are saying that your perception is in your head with no external stimuli other than the bible, hearsay and ceremony. Correct? I think so.

This example is an aberration. And one with an expiry date. A high school drop out that has faith in an electron can be shown proof of the fact that his "faith" is justified and correct.

By the by: copying my arguments and changing a word to TRY to justify yours is actually the effort that is destined to fail. Especially when I never solely relied on either testimony epistemology or ontology to prove anything. I am not this supposed high school drop out. Neither do I care about him.

Fly across to my house (it'll be expensive) and I'll have one of my physics professors duplicate proof experiments for you. Can you make the same offer for any theist epistemology or testimony?

 

Enterprise D


“

Even a poor person can be swayed by material nature - Even a rich person can resist it on the strength of their devotion to god - the reason is that its root is envy, which is not qualified by one's financial status

They cannot be proven to a highschool dropout who is adverse to science

”

School teachers and parents as well

Your diatribe about someone selling a second hand car is also repetitive and also doesn't bear much relevance to what I was saying, hence why I seem to repeat myself I guess.
Try again but this time rely on logic and not direct perception, namely measuring this or that
Maybe it is more progressive to use a different situation where the only obvious avenue of conviction is logic

Suppose you honey in a sealed jar and a person did not believe your testimonies that the honey was sweet - and also assume that for some strange reason they declared that you must prove to them that the honey is sweet without opening the lid - in other words when you only have logic as an avenue of explanation with no opportunity for participation it becomes a bit limiting -particularly when the obvious proceedure is to try it out

Of course - even in the presence of logic a person is free tobelieve whatever they want -it doesn't however indicate thattheir beliefs are logical

Then define the "moreness" of their theological training



”

So what's your point? Church goers fail. So do university students. Even high priests fail alongside university professors. Others don't

I was taking the theoretical position of a person bereft of scientific knowledge -your appeal tothe authority of physics is only valid for a person established in th e knowledge of that field.
If a person replied to your original query ....
"Actually not even that, because I haven't studied it"
How would you respond?

It is also effective on persons hard of hearing

Why do adults go to university? Isit enough to read a print out from a blood testing machine by thinking about it?
In other words can't training assist epistemological processses?

So in other words you are saying its not possible to have an objective thought - what makes you think that?

I agree - if you read my posts you will see that I am saying that the thinking process can only bring one to the applying process - which, BTW, is the basis for the epistemology thread

You're not trying to change my ideas about changing other peoples ideas are you?

So in other words you are assuming that a vacuumed atmosphere is uniformat alltimesand places inthe universe

So first you say that the uniformity of time and space is a fact. Next you say it may be a fact. So we have two answers - Yes and Maybe -doyou want to go for a third?

yes you did

"

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I can perceive where your needs, interests and concerns lie
Generally people are greedy or envious for things they don't have


“ Originally Posted by lightgigantic
Exactly - blind disbelief implies all of this - just like a person blindly disbelieves in god despite never applying the relevant epistemology to determining the validity/invalidity of the claim ”

To make that statement you would have to be omniscient at this in point time - in other words unless you know all that is knowable and unknowable for the rest of eternity, how do you make that statement, unless you are also coated in the before mentioned fecal matter

Only to a person who can approach water - like it becomes more difficult to test in the desert

Perhaps it was inappropriate ,but then so was your condescending "Sweetie, honey, baby ...."



“ Originally Posted by lightgigantic
So in other words the logic of examining the epistemology of cooking a pizza enables you to eat a pizza, even before coming to the point of applying the epistemology?
”



Why are you using a simplistic invention (a product of chemistry), to compare to a god (a product of faith)?

Because you understand pizzas but don't understand god - i am just applying the same general principles to a mutually agreeable knowable subject - basically you seem tobe saying that being familiar with the process of cooking a pizza (ie knowing how to know god) is sufficient to eat a pizza even without cooking etc (ie ... should enable one to see/ touch god - never mind the point of application)

Actually it just makes for more confusion - eg "How do you know that your knowledge of the knowable is known?"

Must be those voices in your head that gave you that conclusion - or perhaps you have been eating to much of thatconceptual pizza again


“ Originally Posted by lightgigantic
The point is that an electron is invisible and its movements are determined by the trail it emits while passing through a gas (at least that is one method) - to come to this point of directly perceiving an electron it requires a substantial level of epistemology - if one lacks that (like the famous high school drop out) one wil say things like "Believing that an electron exists with no physical evidence and no experiments is completely an act of faith, and trying to make your argument concrete with the words "testimony" "epistemology" and "ontology" is a herculean effort destined to fail ”

Depends entirely on the epistemology - like for instance evenif he has faith he still requires a qualified teacher - he cannot get such proof from the green grocer, even if they plead with thegrocer in all sincerity

Its also a good way to make people aware of the problems of their arguments

Yes - the problem is though, whether we are talking about physics or god,that there are two factors namely - the qualified teacher -and - the qualified student

- for instance if the high school dropout goes to the professer and tells him he is an egg head that has wasted over two thirds of his life writing crap in books and doesn't know nothin and blah blah blah then even though he couldhave actually learnt what an electron was (the teacher was qualified) he doesn't perceive what an electron is (the student is unqualified)

 

Utterly subjective. Who is to say what is "swayed" by material nature? What is ambition then?

Yes it can. That's why it's logical

That's why it's most effective on children. Or weak-willed adults.

Ex-squeeze me? YOU brought up the comparison about the car, YOU added in "second-hand" late...and YOU insist on continuing it, instead of realising that having been a qualified corporate salesperson in years previous, with millions in revenue to back me up, I should have the proper epistemology to tell you that you are at the very least inaccurate in your comparison.

How about 3.8 million in sales in my first year. Relying on logic and a smile since I had NO relationship with customers.

Yes, let's try that...

How do you have participation in god? There is no physicality of said entity to perceive. We cannot SEE any god. There are only the endorphins of belonging to a group mentality.

Honey is still a physical substance to test. Said stubborn individual can already see that the honey exists in a jar. (To reiterate: we can't see god exists).

You can disassemble honey with a centrifuge (or whatever) into its sugars, place them under a microscope and compare the cellular structure with known sugars and therefore make a logical assumption that since these known sugars have already been proven to be "sweet" then the honey must be "sweet". I admit it would more than likely be difficult to do this experiment without opening the jar, but not impossible. I've only studied chemistry to a certain level...would love a chemist or maybe a nutritionist to answer this one.

CORRECT. I said so. And to address a later question I happened to glance at first when "PG DN"ing you may try to pose different ideas to people...what I faulted you for is getting uppity when we tell you that you're barking up the wrong tree (i.e. using flights of fancy to attempt to "deconstruct" logic).

Why? Your Ps indicate that levels of epistemology exist, since it depends on testimony and credibility. Therefore the "more" theological training that a person wields the more credible their testimony to enhance the epistemology. YOU however have used a very selective set of Ps (merely going to church) to arrive at a C that will only encompass a sample that would enhance your argument.

Let's cut to the chase...what we are trying to tell you is that testimony and epistemology in and of themselves cannot hold up without physical evidence. And since you have nothing with which to test, your stance is illogical. It may be your leap of faith, your personal belief, but it is still illogical.

Further, you seem to think that a philosophy is enough to break down logical arguments. All a philosophy can do is present other probabilities or possibilities, but without evidence to support...that's what they are...IDEAS. They CANNOT deconstruct logic all by themselves. Your thread therefore sets out to defeat itself from the start.

I haven't read anything further because the above is the finality of my point. Us going around in circles about the car and the student and the honey and the pizza and the priests and your credible epistemological ontology testimony is ineffectual, and honestly, if no-one couldn't show the above, well, we could go on like that ad infinitum. Seen?

 

Enterprise D

swayed by material nature means just that - one's ambitions get hijacked by desire for ephemeral things, in this case ,money - whether one is swayed by money has nothing to do with how much money one has - it has to do with how much money one feels one needs

It might be logical to you, but not the drop out - generally you see that important truths in the field of science are not logically understood by anyone except a handful of people - like are your powers of logic generous enough to enable you to perform brain surgery?

The problem was not the car - the problem was that you always insisted on using means other than logic to sell it - so rather than try and get you to fit the format of the q, it seemed more practical to give an eg where the only avenue of explanation was logic


“ Originally Posted by lightgigantic
Suppose you honey in a sealed jar and a person did not believe your testimonies that the honey was sweet - and also assume that for some strange reason they declared that you must prove to them that the honey is sweet without opening the lid - in other words when you only have logic as an avenue of explanation with no opportunity for participation it becomes a bit limiting -particularly when the obvious proceedure is to try it out
”

But you are not allowed to open the jar so centrifuging is out of the question - and even if you develop some bizzare method to determine the sweetness of honey, it s hardly what a honey seller would advocate - in other words the easiest way to detect the sweetness of honey is to undertake the process of tasting - similarly the easiest way to understand the validity of god's existence is to undertake the process recommended for knowing him.

because you brought it up in your previous statement
"You conveniently left out that I mentioned that some athiests have more theological training than simply going to church. I'll skip that one til you refine it. "

Actually I used the word "correct" epistemology not "more" - I never said that if you spend more time with an incorrect epistemology it grants success

Its your argument that going to church alone is sufficient to determine 100% success in theistic endeavours

I know - by training one becomes qualified to work with the "physical" object

It appears illogical because you never began the training, or if you did only on a very neophyte level

Erm .... logic is a sub catergory of philosophy

Remember baby steps ..... remember baby steps ..... remember baby steps
baby steps .... baby steps ... baby steps