Present Evidence Here II

[Mike Cl]

Yes, it is merely my deluded opinion, that Wikipedia exists, and that this forum exists.  But why do you share similar delusions with me?

Do you recognize people in the street as Americans?  How would you know?  Did you ask to see their papers?  Well I can't either, but I do know a human when I see one.  And yes, American etc are just nationalist memes, they aren't real.  So how is raising my hand to type, supernatural?  I am saying that natural/supernatural, as used here, are meaningless words used rhetorically (dishonestly?).  Raising my hand to type is artificial, not natural.  The hunger in my stomach each morning, that is natural.  But people misuse words, for many reasons?

I hope you feel better.  I don't really know what your rant is supposed to mean.  Why is typing 'unnatural' (much less supernatural) and hunger pangs 'natural'?  Humans have always manipulated their environments with their hands, so I'd suggest typing is completely  natural.   People do misuse words all them time and for many reasons.  You do it to confuse--like using the word 'supernatural' as though it has any real meaning; you use it as the theists who invented it to help them 'prove' the fiction of their god, or your G_d; your god and all others, are fictions and you have a hard time with that.

[Baruch]

I hope you feel better.  I don't really know what your rant is supposed to mean.  Why is typing 'unnatural' (much less supernatural) and hunger pangs 'natural'?  Humans have always manipulated their environments with their hands, so I'd suggest typing is completely  natural.   People do misuse words all them time and for many reasons.  You do it to confuse--like using the word 'supernatural' as though it has any real meaning; you use it as the theists who invented it to help them 'prove' the fiction of their god, or your G_d; your god and all others, are fictions and you have a hard time with that.

Theists didn't invent "supernatural" ... atheists did.  They also invented "natural".  Before that, there wasn't even a word for religion.  Your views are too contemporary, to apply to ancient times.

Yes, all things end, but I am not sure how happy I am with that.  Are you?  Oh, that would be a religious question ...

[cabinetmaker]

No, it couldn't be the presence of God, since no such thing exists, but it could be a hallucination or simply a delusion, or wishful thinking.

You offer an assertion, not proof.  People put much time and effort into proving or disproving the existence of God without ever first pausing to think about what they are trying to prove.  Is there a  physical nature to God?  If so, what would that look like?  Does God exist in ways that we cannot fathom?  For instance. we exist in a 4 dimensional world; x,y,z, and t.  A biology professor from CU-Boulder speculates that God exists in at least 5 dimensions.  What is that 5th dimension.  He went on to say that God would exist in n+1 dimensions.  Mathematically we can prove that there are at least 12 dimensions meaning God exists in 13 dimensions.  How does one begin to prove or disprove the existence of a 13 dimensional Being?  In short, asserting that God doesn't exist is just an assertion. 

This leaves me in the same position though.  I can no more prove that God exists than you can prove that God does not exist.  None the less, I believe that He does exist. 

[cabinetmaker]

The determinant is not "you can't say it's not this", the determinant is "the data says this".  There is absolutely zero justification to make the assumption that any divine power was involved without evidence beforehand.

"It could be this" is not evidence, nor is it even a theory.  It's the barest speculation that lacks even the slightest independent data pointing in that direction.  All you're doing here is presupposing the result you want, and when you do that, you've abandoned the scientific method.

There are three triggers that produce the same result.  The data is the same for each.  So why are two interpretations valid but the third not?

[cabinetmaker]

Ah, so THIS is where you have been lurking!  I saw rumors of you elsewhere.

I had a mother and Father, and loved them as much as they deserved.  I have friends.  I can see them.  Can you see a deity in that same way?  If you can, then you need professional help...

Do you only feel love towards your parents and friends in their physical presence or do you feel that same emotion when you think of them when they are not there.

[cabinetmaker]

We don't need a way to compare God to an emotion like love. We need to compare God to a fiction like Gandalf. That is the relevant comparison.

You are assuming the conclusion to define the debate.  No debate is possible when you open with a fallacy.

[Cavebear]

Yes, it is merely my deluded opinion, that Wikipedia exists, and that this forum exists.  But why do you share similar delusions with me?

Do you recognize people in the street as Americans?  How would you know?  Did you ask to see their papers?  Well I can't either, but I do know a human when I see one.  And yes, American etc are just nationalist memes, they aren't real.  So how is raising my hand to type, supernatural?  I am saying that natural/supernatural, as used here, are meaningless words used rhetorically (dishonestly?).  Raising my hand to type is artificial, not natural.  The hunger in my stomach each morning, that is natural.  But people misuse words, for many reasons?

No.  See that's where you go wrong about reality.  There IS reality.  On the atomic level anyway.  Wikipedia exists; I can find it indepentently of you.  I perceive I exist independently of you.  Cogito Ergo Somewhat...  What I can't prove is that YOU exist independently of ME.  After all, your only existence to me is when *I* log on. 

You could be a part of a Truman's World of which I am the ignorant star (do as you wish with that).  Well, OK, It would be "cavebear's World, but you get my drift.

[Unbeliever]

You offer an assertion, not proof.  People put much time and effort into proving or disproving the existence of God without ever first pausing to think about what they are trying to prove.  Is there a  physical nature to God?  If so, what would that look like?  Does God exist in ways that we cannot fathom?  For instance. we exist in a 4 dimensional world; x,y,z, and t.  A biology professor from CU-Boulder speculates that God exists in at least 5 dimensions.  What is that 5th dimension.  He went on to say that God would exist in n+1 dimensions.  Mathematically we can prove that there are at least 12 dimensions meaning God exists in 13 dimensions.  How does one begin to prove or disprove the existence of a 13 dimensional Being?  In short, asserting that God doesn't exist is just an assertion. 

This leaves me in the same position though.  I can no more prove that God exists than you can prove that God does not exist.  None the less, I believe that He does exist. 

Well, it depends on the exact "nature" of the supposed God and its characteristics (or properties). If it has contradictory characteristics then it cannot logically exist, and so it does not exist. If you posit a God that has entirely self-consistent characteristics then it could at least logically exist. But the Christian (theistic) God isn't this type of God, since its supposed characteristics are, indeed, contradictory.

Incompatible-Properties Arguments: A Survey

So, what properties do you consider God to have? Does it have any properties at all, or is it just some vague "something out there"?

Actually, I fall into the label of "non-cognitivist," since the word God can mean just about anything at all, and so it really means nothing at all.

The atheist does not say," There is no God", but he says, "I know not what you mean by God"; the word God is to me a sound conveying no clear or distinct affirmation.

[Unbeliever]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6wjgNhgaNU

[Baruch]

You are assuming the conclusion to define the debate.  No debate is possible when you open with a fallacy.

Rationalists have no fallacy ;-)  Every word that proceeds from their mouths, is scripture ;-))

[Cavebear]

Rationalists have no fallacy ;-)  Every word that proceeds from their mouths, is scripture ;-))

That itself is a fallacy. 

[Baruch]

That itself is a fallacy. 

You offer an assertion, not proof.  People put much time and effort into proving or disproving the existence of God without ever first pausing to think about what they are trying to prove.  Is there a  physical nature to God?  If so, what would that look like?  Does God exist in ways that we cannot fathom?  For instance. we exist in a 4 dimensional world; x,y,z, and t.  A biology professor from CU-Boulder speculates that God exists in at least 5 dimensions.  What is that 5th dimension.  He went on to say that God would exist in n+1 dimensions.  Mathematically we can prove that there are at least 12 dimensions meaning God exists in 13 dimensions.  How does one begin to prove or disprove the existence of a 13 dimensional Being?  In short, asserting that God doesn't exist is just an assertion. 

This leaves me in the same position though.  I can no more prove that God exists than you can prove that God does not exist.  None the less, I believe that He does exist.

That is the Flatland theology ;-)  I don't need extra dimensions, my gut already has too many dimensions ;-(

[Baruch]

That itself is a fallacy.

Your arguments are typically ex-cathedra ... yet you are not the Pope.  Even if you were, you could ... kiss my yarmulka.

Almost all arguments, made by people, including people here, are fallacy based.  Particularly ad hominem and begging the question.  This isn't a parliamentary debate class in HS ... we have no proctors.

Any real assertion I make (not rhetorical) is based on personal experience.  You can deny my lying eyes, but I respectfully decline.

[Unbeliever]

That itself is a fallacy. 

More like a phallacy...

[Baruch]

You are assuming the conclusion to define the debate.  No debate is possible when you open with a fallacy.

Unfortunately all debates, like elections, are fixed in advance.  If you have the power, and someone is willing to play your game, you make them your bitch.