Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
???
Alex
???
That's not a definition, it's a bald assertion.Metaphysics , fundamental nature of reality .
A definition is a bald assertion. Maybe it was a poor definition or an incomplete one but definitions are not essays. To say something is a bald assertion is to say it is unsupported. That's not the job of definitions, to support.That's not a definition, it's a bald assertion.
There is indeed a difference.
And it is interesting that so far we still are at a point where no evidence for God exists. Its like believers have proved there is no God by simply failing to offer anything at all.
You say there is a difference, then you act in the next sentence that there is no difference. Do you understand that difference? You agreed to what I said. Explain what you agreed to, please.
I have not tried to prove God does not exist at this point
Then why does your thread have the title it does? Could you please change the title of the thread.
as I would like to see if any come forward and offer any reason why they start from a position that assumes there is a God.
The premise that there is a God is without foundation and it is a huge assumption and one made somewhat out of the blue.
It is not a premise to many believers. Just because something cannot be proved to exist does not mean that some people may have good reasons to believe it exists.
If we arrive at a house fire does not the question arise...how did the fire start?
If we arrive at a car crash will we not ask...how did this crash happen?
The simplest of matters ...and yet......
We arrive at God but no question as to how the notion did start...nothing...is that acceptable
The situation is as frustrating as when you ask why a job is done a certain way and the only non intelligent reply is...Oh we have always done it that way.. ..yes but why...oh because we have always done it this way...I will have banana mentality.
Clearly the question posed has not been answered but the person offerring the answer mistakenly thinks they answered inteligently.
They go on and never question and just do it that way because its always been done that way...rather silly not to review the procedure and attempt to keep up to date.
You seem to have a lot of judgments of theists. I sympathize. But overgeneralizing is not useful. As a theist I do not assume that I can demonstrate to you the existence of God, certainly not if you are unwilling to engage in certain practices for a long time and I see no point in trying to convince you you should. I know there are lots of idiotic theists, but you seem to have limited experience of a fuller range of theists.
I think it is most strange to spend time discussing the qualities of a God while never discussing why that God exists or indeed does God exist at all.
All we have so far is in effect...there must be a God because life must have a purpose.
Sure, some theists think that.
If we can not proceed using a law courts requirement of proof society is finished.
That sounds like a doomsday kind of religious belief. Can you demonstrate that belief you just put forward beyond a reasonable doubt?
However I see the merit as clearly those who believe will continue to do so and those who dont will continue to do so and the claim of agnostic really says I dont need to be involved.
What? I don't think you have much experience of agnostics or the various types of agnosticism.
There certainly may be agnostics who mean that, but it can 'say' other things as well. And generally does.
Alex
I tried to back out but I could almost see the disappointment on the faces of those anticipating my fall.May I respectfully suggest this water cooler squabble be disbursed and disbanded
Further this approach be abandoned and replaced, by a new thread, with a different legal process
Since the object of this thread was to prove god did not exist may we, provisional only assume, however tenuously held the belief (or outright disbelief) might be by many or how strongly held by others god exist
I am sorry I dont understand what you mean... Do you think you could expand a little because I am interested in what you have to say.What makes the human race moral or even savable. There's no way of making it good on the demon of un-fairness. It's either un-fair on him or he doesn't exist.
The challenge for me is to set the idea that you cant prove a negative somewhat on its head at least I think you can by using the standards of proof used at law and if those standards are not sufficient what does that mean...
Still not sure but if you say I contradict myself I will accept that is the way you see it.To me second green sentence assumes there is no difference. Yet, you had just agreed with me that there was a difference.
Of course.. There must be some reason.First, do you recognize the fact that one can have good reasons for believing something that one may not be able to or even cannot prove to others is the case.
It seems we are agreeing in a limited way.I am not a Christian (or Jewish or Muslim) so what you are referring to me is not relevent. It also is an overgeneralization, even for monotheists, since their are monotheitsts in those traditions who think that their scriptures may contain culturally influenced distortions or even errors of various kinds. They believe, for various reasons, that the scriptures capture core truths, just as pretty much everyone listens to certain authorities without considering them infallible, just experts. There is a great deal of theistic variety.
I must have put it the wrong way for you.I am asking where this doomsday belief comes from.
No. My point was that if we dont respect our law we have nothing. I am pointing out that the way the law is you can prove certain things and certainly not what you think I am saying.That is not all you suggested. You said something doomsday, end of civilization ish about what happens if we do not apply to court standards to religoius beliefs.
Well you may be right that I cant do it.. It was a pretty big claim to start with and so far things dont seem to be going my way. I already indicated that I did not want to continue but others are making a retreat difficult and so the thread goes on...Right now your posts go beyond saying that theists have not proved there is a God. You have claimed you can prove there is no God. I think that is BS.
Agnosticism 1 is not mutually exclusive from atheism. You don't seem to realize that. That is a fact. Agnosticism can also be a philosphical position, rather than the emotional based one you posit. This is also a fact. If you want to be the voice of reason in relation to theists, you might want to consider using the same rigor you expect from theists for your own beliefs. And yes, much of this thread is opinions. But you opened with a claim to have a proof.
You might want to look up the definition of a "bald assertion".A definition is a bald assertion. Maybe it was a poor definition or an incomplete one but definitions are not essays. To say something is a bald assertion is to say it is unsupported. That's not the job of definitions, to support.
Cat
noun
1.
a small domesticated carnivore, Felis domestica or F. catus, bred in anumber of varieties.
CleveeerYou might want to look up the definition of a "bald assertion".
But you won't.
I did. Just to double check before I wrote my previous response to you. It is an assertion without evidence. Sometimes used in criticism of advertising. Now some people assume that it must be false. But the 'bald' part of 'bald assertion' means that it is naked. There is no justication present. Definitions are assertions seeking to make clear what a term means. You quoted one, a fairly simple definition of metaphysics. Your criticism was that this definition was a bald assertion. I think that is silly since definitions ARE NOT MEANT TO INCLUDE JUSTIFICATIONS. They are definitions. Descriptions of term meaning.You might want to look up the definition of a "bald assertion".
But you won't.
No problem. It is so rare that anyone can admit any error or wrong approach, one can only be grateful when someone does that. Cool.To make everyone happy I withdraw my claim that I can prove God does not exist.
I should have had more sense and not started down this road.
To those who I have upset I offer my sincere and humble appology.
And in an attempt to mitigate my stupidity I ask all to realise that I am somewhat bedridden and that the only folk I get to talk to are really on this forum and although uninformed about religion find that I like discussing it and finding out how others see the world.
My approach has been abrasive no doubt but driven by a genuine desire to bring out others with their point of view.
Again I am sorry to those that I have upset and hope you can understand that being alone and somewhat bedridden perhaps causes me to go over the top at times.
Alex
And you think my post in some way showed I did not understand 'bald assertion' because.....?Cleveeer
But the 'bald' part of 'bald assertion' means that it is naked. There is no justication present
And you think my post in some way showed I did not understand 'bald assertion' because.....?
So what part of his definition of metaphysics was bald or bold?Prof, A “bald” assertion is usually a statement that has very little to no evidence or basis to back it up.
Bold usually means an emphatic or forceful assertion, which may or may not have sufficient evidence. So, a “bold” assertion may be “bald” also. But, not all “bold” assertions are “bald.”
http://www.educatetruth.com/la-sier...we-really-a-bunch-of-flat-earthers/?cid=19357
Justification (for making the statement - not required)
Bald is in essence superfluous
Bold relates to the person making the assertion
Perhaps you were thinking of bold???? Perhaps?