Religious proofs are nonsensical

[davewhite04]

Deferring evidence to some future time is disingenuous.

Replying to my posts is therefore pointless. So is your life pointless?

 

[spidergoat]

Replying to my posts is therefore pointless. So is your life pointless?

Probably.

 

[DaveC426913]

Replying to my posts is therefore pointless.

Non sequitur. This does not follow.

 

[davewhite04]

Non sequitur. This does not follow.

Why does it concern you?

 

[spidergoat]

Why does it concern you?

Are you trying to tell us that talking to you is pointless? Because you are starting to be convincing at last.

 

[DaveC426913]

Why does it concern you?

You're in this discussion, making invalid assertions.
I'm in this discussion too, and calling out invalid assertions, so we can stay on track.
That's how forum discussions work.

 

[davewhite04]

You're in this discussion, making invalid assertions.
I'm in this discussion too, and calling out invalid assertions, so we can stay on track.
That's how forum discussions work.

What did you last discuss? Did I answer it?

 

[Michael 345]

you are full of deceit even after I give you

You gave me nothing

Enjoy your life,

I do

at the end of it it just goes blank.

That's been the case all along. Not my plan but just a fact of life

Now meet my little friend Iggy

*CLICK*

And another one bites the dust
Son of a bitch he was preaching
Not in my post

 

[DaveC426913]

What did you last discuss? Did I answer it?

Chairperson, the opponent is being argumentative in an attempt to derail the topic.

 

[davewhite04]

And another one bites the dust
Son of a bitch he was preaching
Not in my post

Where did I preach big man?

 

[DaveC426913]

Where did I preach big man?

http://www.sciforums.com/threads/what-does-god-do.160177/page-8#post-3512508
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/what-does-god-do.160177/page-8#post-3512542

This is not discussing the topic in these posts; this is warning people. This is preaching.

 

[Musika]

It would be defined in the same manner, I'd imagine - evaluation in terms of practical application.

I'm not sure you understand.
To introduce "pragmatism" is to introduce values (how can one be pragmatic without some end in mind?).
If you want to say you entertain doubt to the degree it is pragmatic to do so, what is that value that drives that pragmatism?
And is that value, subject to doubt?
And if it is subject to doubt, then you are not containing doubt by pragmatism (and if it's not, you don't have a thoroughly tentative world view)

It does?
You can be sure of that, can you?
Or do you only think so from the position of the worldview that you hold?

He didn't jump ascend into a different meta-reality with a sense of self that was alienable to his previous one, did he?
One "world" may be alienable (aka tentative) compared to another, but the self remains constant (along with its baggage of self evident truths, such as the notion of not feeling hungry).

 

[Baldeee]

I'm not sure you understand.

Nor I you.
Funny that.

To introduce "pragmatism" is to introduce values (how can one be pragmatic without some end in mind?).

Yes, values that are, nonetheless, open to change.

If you want to say you entertain doubt to the degree it is pragmatic to do so, what is that value that drives that pragmatism?

The value that drives that pragmatism is confidence.
Confidence is tentative in that it is never absolute, i.e. there is room for doubt.

And is that value, subject to doubt?

In such a worldview, yes, it would be.
It would be a constantly shifting matter, dynamic between values of zero and total.

And if it is subject to doubt, then you are not containing doubt by pragmatism (and if it's not, you don't have a thoroughly tentative world view)

Just because the values may constantly change does not mean that there is no containing.
A ballon changes shape as the quantity of air inside increases or decreases, but whatever amount is in the balloon is still contained.

He didn't jump ascend into a different meta-reality with a sense of self that was alienable to his previous one, did he?

Are you suggesting that the The Matrix offers the only possibility?
If so then I would concur with you, but since my comment was intended to be considered beyond just the philosophy of a single film...

One "world" may be alienable (aka tentative) compared to another, but the self remains constant (along with its baggage of self evident truths, such as the notion of not feeling hungry).

I consider that an unwarranted assumption.
Not to mention the issues our bodies can have in distinguishing between hunger and thirst.


Anyhow, remind me of the reason for exploring this sideline, please?
Perhaps we should revert to the main track, as uninteresting as this sideline is.

 

[Musika]

Anyhow, remind me of the reason for exploring this sideline, please?
Perhaps we should revert to the main track, as uninteresting as this sideline is.

Ok then, fast forward to the car chase, since the scene before it is becoming too prolonged for the auduence. (Hopefully they won't have to hit rewind afterwards because they can't understand what is going on)

"I think therefore I am". We can doubt so many things, but there is a realm where absolute doubt belongs to (mostly) either the insane or the amnesiac. If you arise at the point of doubting what you are doubting with, where are you? (Hopefully not in some sort of hospital)

A worldview without recourse to self evident truths (as perceived by the seer) is a worldview in name only.

 

[Baldeee]

Ok then, fast forward to the car chase, since the scene before it is becoming too prolonged for the auduence. (Hopefully they won't have to hit rewind afterwards because they can't understand what is going on)...

And there was me thinking a request to return to the main track was just that.
Hey ho.

"I think therefore I am". We can doubt so many things, but there is a realm where absolute doubt belongs to (mostly) either the insane or the amnesiac. If you arise at the point of doubting what you are doubting with, where are you? (Hopefully not in some sort of hospital)

One would hope that the doubt one has in such matters would be low, but I see no need for it to be absent, hence the issue of confidence and pragmatism.

A worldview without recourse to self evident truths (as perceived by the seer) is a worldview in name only.

Yet, per wiki at least, there are those who hold there to be no self-evident truths at all (although I have yet to find any further detail... still trying, though).

 

[Jan Ardena]

Lack of evidence that it is not.

What do atheists like yourself, think God is? I assume you, or other atheists who think God is possible, must know what evidence is lacking, in order to think God is possible.

So you think it okay to analogise in insulting terms, as long as you don't actually equate?
Seriously?

I don't see it as insulting.
Where have I insulted you?

I'm sure you think there have been.
But, as said, we‘re still waiting for that from you.

I believe I have given some decent arguments, and explanations in the past. Perhaps you will see more when I get a decent opponent.

Because you only think there is the strong atheist position.
And because you have the a priori belief that God exists.

All milk based products have one thing in common. Milk.
All atheists have one thing in common. There is no God.
From there, you can say what you like, but that will always remain.

And you're deluded if you think the earth is flat.

Why would I be deluded?

See, like you I can also come up with statements that suggest you are deluded yet has no bearing on what was said.

You asked "do you have anything else", as though you've toppled it. I have yet to see that on here.
You see, my point had bearing.
It is your emotion-based responses that have no bearing.

So what?

It gives the wrong impression.

It might also be a reason to simply not have any belief on the matter with regard the whole.

I've told you what it is.

They can be.

Someone can be aware of the whole of the knowledge of the planet?
That's what I mean by the entire whole.

Yet your view is just one when you are not aware of the existence of unicorns on this planet.
Another view held might be that they do not have a belief with regard the existence of unicorns on this planet, as already explained.

You've explained nothing of any relevance. As individuals, everything we think, is just one.

I am not aware of any unicorns existing on this planet, and because of that, I don't believe they exist, in this planet.
That's my position.

Whether you do it deliberately or not, and given the frequency you do it despite being corrected might suggest it is deliberate, you only see the one possibility and omit consideration of the other.

Do what deliberately?

It doesn't matter what I think. Like some atheists think God is possible, I can think unicorns are possible. I can even convince myself they exist, and pretend to believe. But the harsh reality is, they don't exist as far as I am aware.

I have said in my heart, thus there are no unicorns. I am, in the same position as an atheist (with regards unicorns)

Jan.

 

[Michael 345]

who hold there to be no self-evident truths

I would go with that
You see / experience something - what would be self evident about it?

 

[Baldeee]

What do atheists like yourself, think God is? I assume you, or other atheists who think God is possible, must know what evidence is lacking, in order to think God is possible.

And so we go round again, where it stops, nobody knows.

We think God is a possible explanation for the cause of everything.
But since I don't know what evidence would suffice to show God exists, I also can't say I know what evidence would suffice to show that God doesn't exist, not to mention the issues of evidence for a negative when one can not examine the whole etc.

I don't see it as insulting.

One day you may come to realise that that is actually irrelevant.

Where have I insulted you?

By analogising with the role of atheist being played by a white supremacist.
I'm sorry if you don't find that insulting.
Maybe reporting you for it will sharpen your mind to it?

I believe I have given some decent arguments, and explanations in the past. Perhaps you will see more when I get a decent opponent.

Why would the quality of your own argument be affected by your perception of the quality of opponent?
An argument or explanation is not like a sports game where one is directly influenced by what the opponent does.
Further, what you believe you have given is again pretty irrelevant to what is actually out there.

All milk based products have one thing in common. Milk.
All atheists have one thing in common. There is no God.
From there, you can say what you like, but that will always remain.

If only your analogy was accurate.
All you are stating in your analogy is actually that "all atheists are atheists".
If your understanding of atheism is "There is no God" then, as explained many times before, you are working off a flawed understanding.
It is like saying "all milk-based products have one thing in common: yoghurt".

Why would I be deluded?

Because you would be believing something despite their being superior evidence to the contrary.

You asked "do you have anything else", as though you've toppled it. I have yet to see that on here.

No, I asked if you have anything else because the KCA has threads devoted to it already.
Do you have anything else?

You see, my point had bearing.

It did?
What bearing does saying that you don't think atheists have covered off the KCA have to do with me asking if you have anything else apart from the KCA, which is covered in another thread (or more)?

It is your emotion-based responses that have no bearing.

Emotion-based?
Ah, an effort by you to deflect from their content.
I get it: you can't deal with the argument so claim they are emotion-based and can thus be ignored.
Classic Jan.

It gives the wrong impression.

To who, and how?
Whether I state point 1 followed by point 2 or the other way round, what difference does it honestly make, Jan?
Answer: it doesn't and it is just more of your dishonest approach to debates, to raise issue where there are none in an attempt to discredit without addressing.

I've told you what it is.

No, you've told me what you think it is, and I have offered a valise alternative.

Someone can be aware of the whole of the knowledge of the planet?
That's what I mean by the entire whole.

Yes, they can theoretically have the required knowledge of an entire planet.

You've explained nothing of any relevance. As individuals, everything we think, is just one.

"As individuals, everything we think, is just one"?
Care to explain this claim further?
I am not sure of the point you are trying to make.

I am not aware of any unicorns existing on this planet, and because of that, I don't believe they exist, in this planet.
That's my position.

I have no problem with that, but it might not be everyone's position.
Another position, starting with the same premise of not being aware of any unicorns existing on this planet, might be that they simply have no belief as to whether unicorns exist or do not exist on this planet.
they neither believe that unicorns do exist, nor do they believe that unicorns do not exist.
Do you understand this distinction between your view and theirs, despite being built on the same premise of not being aware?

Do what deliberately?

Omit any consideration of the valid alternative.
In the example of the unicorn you would claim that everyone who is not aware of unicorns existing on this planet would believe that unicorns do not exist.
You seem incapable of accepting that the alternative (that I have offers above, that they might instead conclude that they neither believe unicorns exist nor believe they do not exist) is valid.
Until you do accept it, and until you are able to discuss it as such rather than holding every atheist as if they hold a single view, your arguments on such matters will only ever be relevant to atheists that hold the view you expect of them.

It doesn't matter what I think. Like some atheists think God is possible, I can think unicorns are possible. I can even convince myself they exist, and pretend to believe. But the harsh reality is, they don't exist as far as I am aware.

And as said, we can say that we are not aware of unicorns because we know what to expect with regard evidence.
Remove knowledge of what such evidence would be and some would say that we can no longer even claim that we are not aware of unicorns not existing.

I have said in my heart, thus there are no unicorns. I am, in the same position as an atheist (with regards unicorns)

YOU have said in your heart that but it is not a necessary position to take if you are not aware of the existence of unicorns.
YOU have jumped to the conclusion from the partial awareness of the whole to a belief about the whole.
Please try to understand that not everyone takes such a jump.
Can you grasp that?
If one does not know something about a whole but only knows something about a part of the whole, why do you continually insist that everyone has jumped to a conclusion about the whole?
Why do you struggle with people who, because they don't know, choose to abstain from belief in matters?

 

[Michael 345]

All milk based products have one thing in common. Milk.

Anybody milked a cow?

Anybody milked a coconut?

Any differences?

 

[Jan Ardena]

We think God is a possible explanation for the cause of everything.

Why do you?
What is the difference between that, and claiming God does not exist? From your perspective.

But since I don't know what evidence would suffice to show God exists, I also can't say I know what evidence would suffice to show that God doesn't exist, not to mention the issues of evidence for a negative when one can not examine the whole etc.

So it's just lip service. OK.

One day you may come to realise that that is actually irrelevant.

Truth is irrelevant?
That explains alot.

If only your analogy was accurate.
All you are stating in your analogy is actually that "all atheists are atheists".
If your understanding of atheism is "There is no God" then, as explained many times before, you are working off a flawed understanding.
It is like saying "all milk-based products have one thing in common: yoghurt".

As I have told you, many times before, there is no God for the atheist. Hence the request for evidence of God's existence.
But you got that analogy right this time.
You are atheist, and what it precisely entails (the thing you all have 100% in common)

No, I asked if you have anything else because the KCA has threads devoted to it already.
Do you have anything else?

Yes.
Google Bill Craig.

I get it: you can't deal with the argument so claim they are emotion-based and can thus be ignored.
Classic Jan.

What argument?

No, you've told me what you think it is, and I have offered a valise alternative

No. I've explained what I meant.
All you offer is an attempt to obfuscate.

Yes, they can theoretically have the required knowledge of an entire planet

How could it be possible for one to obtain knowledge of an entire planet?
I'm genuinely interested.

"As individuals, everything we think, is just one"?
Care to explain this claim further?
I am not sure of the point you are trying to make.

You said..

Yet your view is just one when you are not aware of the existence of unicorns on this planet.

My point, there are only single (as in your "just one") thoughts, by individuals.

I have no problem with that, but it might not be everyone's position.

I didn't say it was.
But, unless someone is aware of the existence of unicorns, unicorns do not exist, no matter how differently you may think you think.

Another position, starting with the same premise of not being aware of any unicorns existing on this planet, might be that they simply have no belief as to whether unicorns exist or do not exist on this planet.

I guess we have to agree to disagree.

Do you understand this distinction between your view and theirs, despite being built on the same premise of not being aware?

They may think that unicorns could possibly exist, so they do not intellectualy opt for disbelief. But they have to lack belief by default.

You seem incapable of accepting that the alternative (that I have offers above, that they might instead conclude that they neither believe unicorns exist nor believe they do not exist) is valid.

You seem to think we can believe something because we feel like it.

And as said, we can say that we are not aware of unicorns because we know what to expect with regard evidence.

I'm simply not aware of unicorns. Period. When I become aware of them, I'll believe they exist.

Remove knowledge of what such evidence would be and some would say that we can no longer even claim that we are not aware of unicorns not existing.

IOW, it's not worth busting a nut over.

YOU have said in your heart that but it is not a necessary position to take if you are not aware of the existence of unicorns.

I haven't taken a position. It naturally follows I have no knowledge, or perception of the existence of unicorns.

YOU have jumped to the conclusion from the partial awareness of the whole to a belief about the whole.

It's not a jump. I have no choice but to disbelieve unicorns exist. But as I said, if it turns thy do exist It will follow that I must believe they exist (even if pretend to carry on my disbelief)

Why do you struggle with people who, because they don't know, choose to abstain from belief in matters?

People are free agents, and they can choose what they like. I'm not talking about what folk choose to do.


Jan