gatekeeper wrote:

I did not say, that logic is evidence!

That's true, you didn't.

I said that evidence could not
be determined to be evidence by using ironclad logic, because there is
no such thing as ironclad logic. By this definition, there could
therefore be no evidence either if ironclad logic is required!

True, but that's not the same as saying we can't use *valid* logic in
determining which evidence is relevant to the question being
investigated.

On this point, I would agree with ER because as he said, he did not
think I could do provide the evidence, nor could anyone else because
his premise of ironclad logic is faulty, and self serving!

Or, if you were inclined to view it more charitably, it's hyperbole,
like when Jesus said a man must hate his father and mother in order to
follow him. Logic does not have to be ironclad to be valid and
applicable.

Now that is not to say that there is not mounds of evidence, just that
you would not be able to make any particularly guarantteed 100%
accurate conclusion based on using logic, ironclad or otherwise! So the
real problem here comes down to the problem of exercising ironclad
logic.

The problem is not ER's choice of words. The problem is you're
quibbling over semantics when you could be presenting relevant
evidence, if you had any.

The first problem is collecting and analyzing data.

No, the first problem is collecting and analyzing *relevant* data. If
you wanted to study the economic and social causes of the US Civil War,
you could begin collecting and analyzing data on insect life in the
Amazon basin. You could even spend an entire lifetime collecting and
analyzing data on all the different Amazonian bugs. You could pile up
*tons* of data. But when you were through, it wouldn't answer any
questions about what caused the Civil War because it wouldn't be
relevant, any more than your "You, yourself" is relevant to the
question of God's existence.

Our ability to investigate the evidence is seriously lacking.

Maybe yours is; ours isn't. You can't blame a lack of investigative
skills for the absence of any connection between a superstitious
conclusion and the cause it tries to appeal to.

The pile of evidence
presented regarding "You, yourself" to say nothing about anyone else is
a massive amount of information.

You forget, you haven't presented any evidence regarding "You,
yourself." You've only asserted that it is, in some obscure and
inexplicable way, evidence for your trinitarian beliefs. That is almost
a dictionary example of how superstition works.

I you had a Cray available, and it
was operating at full capacity, it would not be able to handle all of
the data that could be imputed, besides actually processing that info
to arrive an any particularly insightful speculation about you and the
world in which you live, and how you relate to that world.

Which is no different from studying Amazonian butterflies as an
investigation of the causes of the Civil War. Generating a massive
amount of *data* is not the same as supplying evidence that is actually
*relevant* to the question of whether or not your God exists (as
opposed to other gods existing in addition to or instead of your God).

For
example, you have two eyes, and you I will assume you are married, and
you love your wife very much! As we are setting here typing, your wife
walks across the room, does a little dosey-doe, in front of you and
heads for the bedroom. Suddenly there is a stimulation of every cell in
your body, all because you saw your wife do a dosey-doe! The Cray
would not be able to begin to keep up with what is happening in
everycell of your body, over this rather simple interchange, and there
are millions of these stimulations every day. And there are many of
"You" out there being stimulated.

Hmm, maybe you could claim this as evidence for Aphrodite and Eros, not
to mention Ishtar/Astarte, whose fertility rites have given us our name
for Easter. Of course, such a claim would still be superstitious, just
like your original argument was. So far you've provided us with
consistent evidence that your claims are based on superstition, and are
possibly an attempt to divert us into a pointless and interminable
study of data that has no relevance to the point you're trying to make.

Now add to this, that after analyzing all of this data, if you were
able to collect it, and come to any conclusion about yourself even, the
possibility of having a small inkling about God, is laughable.

Well, that might be true, but not for the reasons you imagine. The real
reason is because the massive amount of data you want to dump on us is
actually not relevant to the question at issue. Besides, why are you
turning to a study of *man* in order to try and develop some semblance
of evidence about the existence of *God*? Just give us direct evidence
of God Himself--if there is any.

Now you
all ask for evidence, I piled it on every one of you plates, which I
grant was sort of like putting a 32 oz Porterhouse steak on the plate
of an infant, and thinking the babe would even know where to begin to
cut the thing up, besides being able to eat it at one setting. Now all
of this has to do with the evidence itself!

No, what you did was like promising food, and piling up our plates with
the collected writings of 17th through 19th century poets. Evidence of
God's existence would be like being able to produce photographs of Him
standing next to you, or videotaping His appearance at your church, or
getting Him to participate in this discussion and make a few posts
saying "Hello, I'm here" (plus being able to answer questions about,
say, what's written on the paper in my left back pocket, just to make
sure he's not just some imposter pretending to be God).

See the difference?

The second part of the problem which has been touched on is that we do
not have a Cray attached to each, or all, or any pile of evidence.

How could we? You haven't supplied any evidence yet. Just a pile of
irrelevant data.

Not
only that we are worse than the babe, we are corrupt analytical
machines. our knife to cut that steak, is very dull. We are blind,
amputees, and all of our sensory preceptions have been damaged - we are
in major need of damage control before the good ship Lolly PoP sinks!
Now I am not saying, that we are totally helpless, just that everything
we see, is like looking though a telescope that has vaseline spread on
the lense! We are likely going to come up with some really bad info
about ourselves and the world, and God!

Bull puckey. You're just claiming we cannot see the Emperor's New
Clothes because there's something wrong with our eyes. It's a silly
argument, because the Bible is full of stories about people seeing and
hearing God just fine. If you had any objectively real evidence that
was actually relevant to God's existence, you wouldn't have to have to
set us up by offering advance excuses for why your evidence isn't
actually going to be observable.

Remember, you're supposed to be offering real world evidence, not
appealing to some subjectively-perceived spiritual realm that "only the
pure in heart can perceive." Of course, if you don't have any real
world evidence, feel free to say so.

It might have been easier to say, can any of us pick ourselves up by
our boot staps?

Easier, and just as irrelevant.

If we can not pick our selves up, what makes us think that we can pick
up God, roll Him around in our hands, and look at Him under our puny
microscope?

Why, did the Pharisees have microscopes? Did Pharoah? For that matter,
did Moses, or any of the prophets have microscopes? You said you were
going to provide evidence of God, and now you've switched to defending
the idea that no such evidence is possible. Ok, we get the point: we
cannot have any evidence of God, and neither can any of the men who
wrote the Bible. It's just not possible, right?

Besides come up with any meaningful suggestion of what we
are seeing!

It's called "reality." It's not our fault if your God is unwilling or
unable to participate in it.

And if you say, we are only interested in the evidence of
God, not really looking at Him, then your dilemna is even worse of
trying to find Him, of whom it is said that we live and move and have
our being!

Uh, in case you hadn't noticed, I've been saying all along that the
most fundamental and obvious evidence of your God's existence would be
for Him to show up. And the most fundamental and obvious consequence of
His non-existence (outside of human fantasies) would be His inability
to show up in the real world.

m

Mark Nutter wrote:

Free Lunch wrote:

Logic is not evidence. I am curious why you think that logic cannot be
ironclad.

It can be ironclad in the sense that there is a well-defined difference
between valid logic and fallacious logic. Where it falls down is in the
fact that, in practical applications, sound logic leads to conclusions
that are only as valid as the premises on which they operate. There may
therefore be a margin of error with regards to one's choice of premises
on which one's logic is based.

Margin of error, now there is a good one! Let me assume, that you are
fairly bright, and your logic skills are above average, and you can
come up with a margin of error of .000000000001%.

That means that when you analyze the infinite set that makes up God,
you would come up with an infinite error.

In other words any
conclusion you could come up with is meaningless hogwash! Though I
suppose if you are willing to take a bath, you could jump in! Enjoy!