| Topic: |
Religions > Bible |
| User: |
"John Rohrer" |
| Date: |
23 Jan 2004 12:03:53 AM |
| Object: |
Re: No evidence of God yet... |
Douglas wrote:
I am an agnostic. Now that that's out of the way, I do not believe that
the God portrayed in Christian mythology or any other religion is real or
even close. Prayer and worship is just a waste of time because no God is
listening.
Well, there's the power of expectations, hope, self-fulfilling prophecies,
mind-body medicine...what did I leave out...
I thought God was all powerful and perfect. Well this place
(Earth) is a disaster. I am not impressed with his work if that is the
case. I tried to talk to God, but he won't answer me back. He must not
like me.
Well, the bible says He gave us free will, right? As far as your "no reply", it
may be that you're not listening in the right way or in the right frame of mind.
Hey, it's plausible anyway.
All I have to say to a theist is prove it. They will freeze
up...naturally because even they know their beliefs are totally irrational.
They will often come back with "Prove he doesn't exist". The burden of
proof lies in the theist lap. They should convince me he is real, not scare
me into believing he is real with the "threat" of Hell after death. I
believe when you die, you die. No heaven or hell. Just nothing. It will
feel the way you felt before you were born.
I don't know how you can say to such a certain degree. It seems congruent with
common sense and observation, but common sense and observation may not be
equipped to give us any thorough understanding of mortality. Many perspectives
can be taken, and they all make sense to those who take them. For instance,
who's to say that there's nothing to the idea of reincarnation? Who's to say
we're not just the eyes of the universe winking open and shut as we watch
ourselves through the ages? Is the concept of personal identity inherently
misleading? If our identities are functions of our brief, local experience of
the universe, what are the implications? Alternately, if there is a more basic,
essential identity, would that not live in each locus of experience manifested
throughout the universe? ...food for thought anyway.
I can accept that. Theist
can't. So they decided to make up a nice place for good people and a bad
place for bad people. Sounds like this was made up a long time ago to keep
people in line and give them hope that "when I die, I will go to heaven."
Without religion, people would see no reason to live here. Anarchy would
happen.
Perhaps "civilized" culture (where the food is under lock and key) breeds
heirarchy and injustice and suppresses true tribal democracy. If you've toiled
under oppression your whole life while a privileged few commit atrocities with
impunity (as the system enables), divine justice is an understandably welcome
concept. "Keeping the masses in line" sounds to me like an attempt to save a
society whose social bonds were dissolved by and insidious atmosphere of control
and personal entitlement (the dangerous combination which seems to me to be at
the heart of the agricultural revolution which spawned the need for
"salvationist" religions. You see, indigenous cultures (still being extinguished
by civilization's zealous expansion) ascribe to "animistic" religions focused on
the interdependent harmony of life, rather than a way to cope with our current
disequilibruim. If you contest that the alternative is anarchy, I submit the
opinion that heirarchical governmental systems create the suffering which
"salvationist" religions medicate.
Heaven, sounds nice...lets go there and prove it once and for all...oh,
thats right. How convienient. We can't go there alive and there is no
scientific reason to believe in its existence anyway. Heaven is not real.
Period.
Well, who's to say unequivocally that it's not? Or maybe it's all a matter of
perspective. It seems real enough as a metaphor for creating a utopian society.
But then, utopianism seems inherently divisive, as it rejects compromise in
favor of the One Right Way which seems to cause so many conflicts.
God, sounds like an interesting person...I would like to meet him
now...oh, thats right. How convienient. He doesn't talk back and science
has yet to find his radio frequency. Either God doesn't care about us or he
doesn't exist.
Begging for opinions please.
Maybe we *are God in the sense that we're indistinguishably connected to every
perticle in the known universe. Maybe we're trying to playing God all over this
planet. Or maybe, just *maybe, there *is a real God out there who entrusted us
with this fine planet... which will cease to be when Christ returns to send the
non-Christian 2/3 of the planet straight to hell or purgatory along with all of
the Christian sects who happened to be wrong (oops) any any within the *right
faith who weren't quite able to follow all of the rules. Oh yeah, I forgot to
include any sentient beings inhabiting any of the other trillion planets
throughout the universe.Gee, hell sounds like the place to be to meet new
people.
Crossing my fingers,
John
.
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: No evidence of God yet... |
29 Feb 2004 07:54:14 PM |
|
|
In article <ipq0c.87156$4o.109213@attbi_s52>, Navigator <nav@nav.com>
wrote:
MG wrote:
Navigator wrote:
[snip]
define your term, "higher being" in some kind of meaningful,
verifiable way,
Your theory of semantics (meaning) is mistaken. Propositions do not need
to be verifiable in order to be meaningful.
Example: There is a dead mouse in a hole which no one will ever examine.
[ Irrelevancy Deleted ]
[ Irrelevancy Deleted ]
Example: The lowest positive prime number that no one will ever consider
ends in 3.
[ Irrelevancy Deleted ]
Similarly, in order to be meaningful, concept terms (such as "higher
being") ...
[ Irrelevancy Deleted ]
Fine. I will join you in stipulating that.
...
do not need to be defined in a way that enables the existence of
something instantiating that term to be verified.
[ Irrelevancy Deleted ]
[ Irrelevancy Deleted ]
It may be arguable that all *scientifically* meaningful propositions
must be cashed out in terms that are, in principle, verifiably true or
verifiably false, ...
[ Irrelevancy Deleted ]
... but not all meaningful propositions are scientific ones.
[ Irrelevancy Deleted ]
[Lie Deleted]
[Lie Deleted]
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "MG" |
|
| Title: Re: No evidence of God yet... |
01 Mar 2004 02:40:05 AM |
|
|
Navigator wrote:
MG wrote:
Navigator wrote:
[snip]
define your term, "higher being" in some kind of meaningful,
verifiable way,
Your theory of semantics (meaning) is mistaken. Propositions do not
need to be verifiable in order to be meaningful.
Example: There is a dead mouse in a hole which no one will ever examine.
Mice are already known to exist, so this is not relevant to the issue
genuinely under discussion here,
The issue I am raising with you is your mistaken notion of
meaningfullness. As an example that demonstrates that (contrary to your
suggestions otherwise) there are meaningful propositions that cannot be
verified false, it could hardly be more relevent. It is relevent because
it clearly demonstrates that the view of semantics that underpins your
demand for a definition of "higher being" that allows for the
verification of the existence of such a thing, is entirely mistaken, and
hence, we can conclude, your demand that a definition be provided for
"higher being" that allows verifiability, does not need to be met.
the alleged existence of a magic
invisible something theists refer to as "God" without ever explaining it
in any kind of meaningful, verifiable way.
"The Fallacies of Diversion. The fallacies in this family share the
characteristic that they distract attention away from the issue that is
genuinely under discussion."
http://www.cuyamaca.net/bruce.thompson/Fallacies/diversion.asp
Example: The lowest positive prime number that no one will ever
consider ends in 3.
Numbers do not 'exist' as mice do, and as the magic invisible God is
alleged to, so this is irrelevant too.
Whether numbers exists or not, it demonstrates that the theory of
semantics that underpins your demand is mistaken, so it's perfectly
relevent as a challenge to your demand. I understand it, as would most
with at aleast a high scholl graduation behind them, I suspect. Ergo the
exmaple is meaningful. But it is also self-evidently unverifiable. Ergo,
your wrong - not all menaingful statements must be verifiable.
I'm pointing out why your mistaken - one could hardly get more relevent
than that.
Similarly, in order to be meaningful, concept terms (such as "higher
being") ...
So that's all it is, a mental concept, a hypothetical (metaphysically
speculative, 'might be') imagining with no basis in fact?
It's a *concept term*, not a "hypothetical" nor an "imagining with no
basis in fact".
Fine. I will join you in stipulating that.
...
do not need to be defined in a way that enables the existence of
something instantiating that term to be verified.
Then how is anyone to ever know it, in the human experience, if the
statement, "There is no 'higher being'" were false?
The issue is whether all meaningful statements must be verifiable (in
proinciple) as false. (This is the issue because you rely on it in
making your demand.) And the answer is a very clear "no": there are
meaningful statements that are not, in principle, verifiable as false.
Hence any demand (such as yours) based on the erronous assumption that
all meaningful propositions must be in principle verifiable as false, is
without warrant. That's the point - your demand does not need to be met.
If there is no way to ever know that, then the term, 'higher being' has
no more meaning than the meaningless statement, "This statement is false."
I've just shown you two examples that shows that your wrong to think
that all semantically meaningful propositions need some criteria of
verification. Repeating that mistake (above) doesn't help your position.
It may be arguable that all *scientifically* meaningful propositions
must be cashed out in terms that are, in principle, verifiably true or
verifiably false, ...
Nobody ever has to prove that "An invisible God might exist anyway, even
though there is no evidence of any such thing" is false. That would be
fallacy of shifting the burden of proof to the atheists (those who do
not hold the unjustified religious belief the theists do).
[yawn]
... but not all meaningful propositions are scientific ones.
By 'scientific' you mean relating to knowledge of the facts in this
particular case?
When I use the words "scientific"? I mean "of or pertaining to science".
I do not mean "relating to knowledge of the facts in this particular
case" by that word. If we replaced "scientific" with your paraphrase it
would not even be grmamatical, let alone synonymous.
Here we have the allegation by the theist true believers that a
hypothetical something theists refer to as a 'higher being' might exist
anyway, even thought there is no evidence of any such thing, in fact the
true believers cannot even describe it in any kind of meaningful,
verifiable way?
Here we have a demand from you that either 1) a definition for "higher
being" be provided such that the existence of such would be verifiable
or 2) else it be judged "meaningless". And the examples I provide show
such a demand to be a false dichotomy based on a mistaken view of
meaningfullness.
The only reasonable presumption, "False, there is no such thing as
hypothesized" is a meaningful, 'scientific' statement, don't you agree,
in that it would be known immediately if it were false if theists ever
produced some logically satisfactory evidence of this hypothetical
'higher being' of theirs?
I'll stick to the point I raised against your demand, if you don't mind.
(And I'll stick to that point even if you do mind.)
MG
.
|
|
|
| User: "Navigatorator" |
|
| Title: Re: No evidence of God yet... |
04 Mar 2004 12:39:51 PM |
|
|
MG wrote:
Navigator wrote:
MG wrote:
Navigator wrote:
[snip]
define your term, "higher being" in some kind of meaningful,
verifiable way,
Your theory of semantics (meaning) is mistaken. Propositions do not
need to be verifiable in order to be meaningful.
Example: There is a dead mouse in a hole which no one will ever examine.
Mice are already known to exist, so this is not relevant to the issue
genuinely under discussion here, ...
The issue I am raising with you ...
We already have an issue here, the issue that is genuinely under
discussion, The alleged existence of a magic invisible something theists
refer to as "God" without ever explaining it in any kind of meaningful,
verifiable way.
Mice are already known to exist, so your attempted diversion into mice
in holes has logically nothing to do with the issue genuinely under
discussion here.
... the alleged existence of a magic
invisible something theists refer to as "God" without ever explaining
it in any kind of meaningful, verifiable way.
"The Fallacies of Diversion. The fallacies in this family share the
characteristic that they distract attention away from the issue that
is genuinely under discussion."
http://www.cuyamaca.net/bruce.thompson/Fallacies/diversion.asp
Example: The lowest positive prime number that no one will ever
consider ends in 3.
Numbers do not 'exist' as mice do, and as the magic invisible God is
alleged to, so this is irrelevant too.
Whether numbers exists or not, it demonstrates that the theory of
semantics that underpins your demand is mistaken,
This has nothing to do with any "theories of semantics," knucklehead, it
is a straight aghed discussion of the issue at hand, the assertion by
theists that a magic invisible something they refer to as "God" without
ever describing it in any kind of meaningful, verifiable way, might
exist anyway, even though there is no such thing in evidence. You are
just trying to create a diversion into a discussion of semantics.
"The Fallacies of Diversion. The fallacies in this family share the
characteristic that they distract attention away from the issue that is
genuinely under discussion."
http://www.cuyamaca.net/bruce.thompson/Fallacies/diversion.asp
Similarly, in order to be meaningful, concept terms (such as "higher
being") ...
So that's all it is, a mental concept, a hypothetical (metaphysically
speculative, 'might be') imagining with no basis in fact?
It's a *concept term*, not a "hypothetical" nor an "imagining with no
basis in fact".
What is the basis in fact for it then?
Fine. I will join you in stipulating that.
...
do not need to be defined in a way that enables the existence of
something instantiating that term to be verified.
Then how is anyone to ever know it, in the human experience, if the
statement, "There is no 'higher being'" were false?
The issue is whether all meaningful statements must be verifiable ...
No it isn't. Theiquestion I asked you is a fair one, "Then how is anyone
to ever know it, in the human experience, if the statement, "There is no
'higher being'" were false?
If you cannot exlain how that would ever be known, then 'higher being'
is a meaningless term.
If there is no way to ever know that, then the term, 'higher being'
has no more meaning than the meaningless statement, "This statement is
false."
I've just shown you two examples
No, you have just tried to create a diversion into semantics. 'Mouse' is
a term already well defined, and mice are already known to exist, so
that has logically nothing to do with the issue genuinely under
discussion here.
It may be arguable that all *scientifically* meaningful propositions
must be cashed out in terms that are, in principle, verifiably true
or verifiably false, ...
Nobody ever has to prove that "An invisible God might exist anyway,
even though there is no evidence of any such thing" is false. That
would be fallacy of shifting the burden of proof to the atheists
(those who do not hold the unjustified religious belief the theists do).
[yawn]
You find these principles of valid argument (logic) boring? Then we have
no common basis for the discussion of anything. Bye bye.
... but not all meaningful propositions are scientific ones.
By 'scientific' you mean relating to knowledge of the facts in this
particular case?
When I use the words "scientific"? I mean "of or pertaining to science".
'Science' comes from the latin word meaning 'to know', knucklehead. So
when anyone says "Of or pertaining to science," he means of or
pertaining to knowledge of the demonstrable facts in this particular case.
I do not mean "relating to knowledge of the facts in this particular
case" by that word. ...
Then you aren't talking about science, you are just trying to create
some kind of lame diversion.
Here is the question you have yet to answer: If you cannot explain the
meaning of the term, 'higher being' in some kind of meaningful,
verifiable way, then how can it be a scientific (relating to knowledge)
term relating to knowledge of the facts in this particular case?
Here we have the allegation by the theist true believers that a
hypothetical something theists refer to as a 'higher being' might
exist anyway, even thought there is no evidence of any such thing, in
fact the true believers cannot even describe it in any kind of
meaningful, verifiable way?
Here we have a demand from you that either 1) a definition for "higher
being" be provided such that the existence of such would be verifiable ...
How else could it ever be known in the human experience if the
denial (negation in logic), "There is no higher being" were false?
If there is no way to eveer know that, then "God" or "higher being" is
simply memaningless metaphysical speculation with no basis in fact
(unless you can demonstrate the basis in fact for it today).
The only reasonable presumption, "False, there is no such thing as
hypothesized" is a meaningful, 'scientific' statement, don't you
agree, in that it would be known immediately if it were false if
theists ever produced some logically satisfactory evidence of this
hypothetical 'higher being' of theirs?
I'll stick to the point I raised against your demand, if you don't mind.
(And I'll stick to that point even if you do mind.)
But it's not me making any kind of "demand," knucklehead. This is a
principle of valid argument that if the proponents of anything not in
evidence like this hypothetical (speculative, 'might be') imagining,
'higher being' or 'God', whatever you want to call it, cannot even
describe their proposed thing in any kind of meaningful, verifiable way,
then it remains simply meaningless metaphysical speculation with no
basis in fact.
Atheists have nothing (no thing) to describe or demonstrate, theists do,
and you haven't helped to make their case, you have just tried and
failed to create a lame diversion into something that has logically
nothing to do with the issue that is genuinely under discussion here.
"The Fallacies of Diversion. The fallacies in this family share the
characteristic that they distract attention away from the issue that is
genuinely under discussion."
http://www.cuyamaca.net/bruce.thompson/Fallacies/diversion.asp
.
|
|
|
| User: "MG" |
|
| Title: Re: No evidence of God yet... |
05 Mar 2004 06:00:19 AM |
|
|
Navigatorator wrote:
MG wrote:
Navigator wrote:
MG wrote:
Navigator wrote:
[snip]
define your term, "higher being" in some kind of meaningful,
verifiable way,
Your theory of semantics (meaning) is mistaken. Propositions do not
need to be verifiable in order to be meaningful.
Example: There is a dead mouse in a hole which no one will ever
examine.
Mice are already known to exist, so this is not relevant to the issue
genuinely under discussion here, ...
The issue I am raising with you ...
We already have an issue here, the issue that is genuinely under
discussion, The alleged existence of a magic invisible something theists
refer to as "God" without ever explaining it in any kind of meaningful,
verifiable way.
And *there* is the issue I raise - your appeal above to a mistaken
criterion for meaningfulness that my examples demolish.
Mice are already known to exist,
True [yawn]
so your attempted diversion into mice
in holes has logically nothing to do with the issue genuinely under
discussion here.
That inference is clearly invalid, but your quite right if you think
that the fact that mice are already known to exist is completely
irrelevant to the issue genuinely under discussion here.
You appeal to a mistaken criterion for meaningfullness (repeated in your
above), and my example demonstrates its falsity.
... the alleged existence of a magic
invisible something theists refer to as "God" without ever explaining
it in any kind of meaningful, verifiable way.
"The Fallacies of Diversion. The fallacies in this family share the
characteristic that they distract attention away from the issue that
is genuinely under discussion."
http://www.cuyamaca.net/bruce.thompson/Fallacies/diversion.asp
Example: The lowest positive prime number that no one will ever
consider ends in 3.
Numbers do not 'exist' as mice do, and as the magic invisible God is
alleged to, so this is irrelevant too.
Whether numbers exists or not, it demonstrates that the theory of
semantics that underpins your demand is mistaken,
This has nothing to do with any "theories of semantics," knucklehead,
It does because you rely on a mistaken theory of meaningfullness.
it
is a straight aghed discussion of the issue at hand, the assertion by
theists that a magic invisible something they refer to as "God" without
ever describing it in any kind of meaningful, verifiable way, might
exist anyway, even though there is no such thing in evidence.
There you go again relying on your mistaken theory of semantics. Not all
meaningful claims need be verifiably false, as you suggest.
You are
just trying to create a diversion into a discussion of semantics.
"The Fallacies of Diversion. The fallacies in this family share the
characteristic that they distract attention away from the issue that is
genuinely under discussion."
http://www.cuyamaca.net/bruce.thompson/Fallacies/diversion.asp
Similarly, in order to be meaningful, concept terms (such as "higher
being") ...
So that's all it is, a mental concept, a hypothetical (metaphysically
speculative, 'might be') imagining with no basis in fact?
It's a *concept term*, not a "hypothetical" nor an "imagining with no
basis in fact".
What is the basis in fact for it then?
[yawn] Concept terms don't need basing in fact.
Fine. I will join you in stipulating that.
...
do not need to be defined in a way that enables the existence of
something instantiating that term to be verified.
Then how is anyone to ever know it, in the human experience, if the
statement, "There is no 'higher being'" were false?
The issue is whether all meaningful statements must be verifiable ...
No it isn't.
Yes it is, and every time you invoke that mistaken principle, as you do
throughout your post.
Theiquestion I asked you is a fair one, "Then how is anyone
to ever know it, in the human experience, if the statement, "There is no
'higher being'" were false?
That question presupposes that it matters to the meaningfullness of a
claim whether it can be known to be false. My counterexamples
demonstrates that that presupposition is mistaken. The onus falls on you
to defend your criterion of meaning against my counterexamples. Once you
establish that your criterion of meaningfullness is correct, then, and
only then, does your question above become fair or even relevant. Until
then it is moot.
If you cannot exlain how that would ever be known, then 'higher being'
is a meaningless term.
That inference presupposes the very criterion of meaningfullness at
issue. My examples show that criterion to be mistaken.
If there is no way to ever know that, then the term, 'higher being'
has no more meaning than the meaningless statement, "This statement
is false."
I've just shown you two examples
No, you have just tried to create a diversion into semantics.
You invoke a mistaken criterion for meaningfulness - that is a semantic
issue, and thus not a diversion.
'Mouse' is
a term already well defined, and mice are already known to exist,
True [yawn]
so
that has logically nothing to do with the issue genuinely under
discussion here.
Invalid inference again. But your quite right that the fact that mouse
is already defined and that mice are already known to exist is
completely irrelevant to the issue genuinely under discussion here. All
the more puzzling that you mention such irrelevancies. (I don't).
It may be arguable that all *scientifically* meaningful propositions
must be cashed out in terms that are, in principle, verifiably true
or verifiably false, ...
Nobody ever has to prove that "An invisible God might exist anyway,
even though there is no evidence of any such thing" is false. That
would be fallacy of shifting the burden of proof to the atheists
(those who do not hold the unjustified religious belief the theists do).
[yawn]
You find these principles of valid argument (logic) boring?
I find your repetition of the above boring.
Then we have
no common basis for the discussion of anything.
Another invalid inference. (Although the conclusion could be true.)
Bye bye.
... but not all meaningful propositions are scientific ones.
By 'scientific' you mean relating to knowledge of the facts in this
particular case?
When I use the words "scientific"? I mean "of or pertaining to science".
'Science' comes from the latin word meaning 'to know', knucklehead. So
when anyone says "Of or pertaining to science," he means of or
pertaining to knowledge of the demonstrable facts in this particular case.
Yet another invalid inference and another false conclusion.
I do not mean "relating to knowledge of the facts in this particular
case" by that word. ...
Then you aren't talking about science,
Incorrect. I am when I say that "not all meaningful propositions are
scientific ones". Since my claim was quite general, I did not mean "in
this particular case".
you are just trying to create
some kind of lame diversion.
It is a correction of your mistaken assumption.
Here is the question you have yet to answer: If you cannot explain the
meaning of the term, 'higher being' in some kind of meaningful,
verifiable way, then how can it be a scientific (relating to knowledge)
term relating to knowledge of the facts in this particular case?
That is a question I don't need to answer until you demonstrate that the
criterion of meaning you invoke in posing it survives my demolition by
counter-example.
Here we have the allegation by the theist true believers that a
hypothetical something theists refer to as a 'higher being' might
exist anyway, even thought there is no evidence of any such thing, in
fact the true believers cannot even describe it in any kind of
meaningful, verifiable way?
Here we have a demand from you that either 1) a definition for "higher
being" be provided such that the existence of such would be verifiable
...
How else could it ever be known in the human experience if the
denial (negation in logic), "There is no higher being" were false?
That's moot until you successfully defend your criterion of meaningfullness.
If there is no way to eveer know that, then "God" or "higher being" is
simply memaningless metaphysical speculation with no basis in fact
(unless you can demonstrate the basis in fact for it today).
The validity of your inferences such as "If there is no way to eveer
know that, then "God" or "higher being" is simply memaningless
metaphysical speculation ..." is precisely what is at issue. I have
provided counterexamples that demonstrate that the principle of
meaningfullness you invoke in the above is mistaken. I await your
defence on that charge.
The only reasonable presumption, "False, there is no such thing as
hypothesized" is a meaningful, 'scientific' statement, don't you
agree, in that it would be known immediately if it were false if
theists ever produced some logically satisfactory evidence of this
hypothetical 'higher being' of theirs?
I'll stick to the point I raised against your demand, if you don't
mind. (And I'll stick to that point even if you do mind.)
But it's not me making any kind of "demand," knucklehead. This is a
principle of valid argument that if the proponents of anything not in
evidence like this hypothetical (speculative, 'might be') imagining,
'higher being' or 'God', whatever you want to call it, cannot even
describe their proposed thing in any kind of meaningful, verifiable way,
then it remains simply meaningless metaphysical speculation with no
basis in fact.
Whether they can make a meaningful claim without it being verifiable as
false, or whether they can define a meaningful concept term without it
being verifiable that such a concept term is instantiated, is precisely
what is at issue. And it will stay at issue until you cease making
claims or asking questions that presuppose that criterion of
meaningfullness. I've demonstrated by examples that there are meaningful
propositions that cannot be verified as false, and thus, that your
invocation of a principle of meaningfullness that insists that they
can't do such things, is invalid.
Atheists have nothing (no thing) to describe or demonstrate, theists do,
[yawn]
and you haven't helped to make their case, you have just tried and
failed to create a lame diversion into something that has logically
nothing to do with the issue that is genuinely under discussion here.
Incorrect, yet again.
MG
"The Fallacies of Diversion. The fallacies in this family share the
characteristic that they distract attention away from the issue that is
genuinely under discussion."
http://www.cuyamaca.net/bruce.thompson/Fallacies/diversion.asp
.
|
|
|
| User: "Navigatorator" |
|
| Title: Re: No evidence of God yet... |
05 Mar 2004 11:33:03 AM |
|
|
MG wrote:
Navigatorator wrote:
Here is the question you have yet to answer: If you cannot explain the
meaning of the term, 'higher being' in some kind of meaningful,
verifiable way, then how can it be a scientific (relating to
knowledge) term relating to knowledge of the facts in this particular
case?
That is a question I don't need to answer until you demonstrate that the
criterion of meaning you invoke in posing it survives my demolition by
counter-example.
You haven't "demolished" anything, knucklehead; as I have already
explained, all you have done is try to create a diversion:
"The Fallacies of Diversion. The fallacies in this family share the
characteristic that they distract attention away from the issue that is
genuinely under discussion."
http://www.cuyamaca.net/bruce.thompson/Fallacies/diversion.asp
You have tried to create a diversion by changing the subject from the
alleged existence of a "God" thingy to mice in holes, and both mice and
holes are already known to exist, unlike the hypothetical "God" thingy,
so mice and holes have logically nothing to do with the issue genuinely
under discussion here. Get used to that, knucklehead. Try to start
thinking like a philosopher instead of like a kid with a mind full of mush.
Here is a meaningful, scientific statement about the universe: "There is
no God" (where the term 'God' refers to the hypothetical 'higher being'
proposed by theist true believers, but not yet explained in any kind
of meaningful, verifiable way).
We would know it immediately if that statememt were false the moment
some meanigful, verifiable explanation of the proposed thing, and some
evidence of the proposed thing were produced by the proponents of it.
Atheists have nothing (no thing) to explain, theists do. Get used to
that too.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Navigatorator" |
|
| Title: Re: No evidence of God yet... |
04 Mar 2004 06:25:40 PM |
|
|
Virgil wrote:
In article <XJK1c.458962$I06.5173898@attbi_s01>,
Navigatorator <navi@navi.com> wrote:
We already have an issue here, the issue that is genuinely under
discussion,
The alleged proof that gods are impossible.
Why do you believe that the theists are corect, a magic invisible god
might exist anyway, even thought there is no evidence of any such thing?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Navigatorator" |
|
| Title: Re: No evidence of God yet... |
06 Mar 2004 03:47:38 AM |
|
|
Virgil wrote:
In article <8OP1c.41323$ko6.358593@attbi_s02>,
Navigatorator <navi@navi.com> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <XJK1c.458962$I06.5173898@attbi_s01>,
Navigatorator <navi@navi.com> wrote:
We already have an issue here, the issue that is genuinely under
discussion,
The alleged proof that gods are impossible.
Why do you believe that the theists are corect, a magic invisible god
might exist anyway, even thought there is no evidence of any such thing?
Why have you stopped beating your wife?
Both questions presume facts not in evidence, so if either is invalid,
both are.
Nice evasion. So you do not deny that you believe that a magic invisible
God might exist anyway, even thought there is no evidence of any such thing?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "TehGhodTrole" |
|
| Title: Re: No evidence of God yet... |
01 Mar 2004 02:52:50 AM |
|
|
MG wrote:
It's a *concept term*, not a "hypothetical" nor an "imagining with no
basis in fact".
I already rammed the idea of contrary notion not being the same as logical
negation down his neck. He slinked off the sub-thread.
--
TehGhodTrole: Trolling, for God's sake.
Your Free Insult: Jesus loves you.
.
|
|
|
| User: "MG" |
|
| Title: Re: No evidence of God yet... |
05 Mar 2004 04:36:43 AM |
|
|
TehGhodTrole wrote:
MG wrote:
It's a *concept term*, not a "hypothetical" nor an "imagining with no
basis in fact".
I already rammed the idea of contrary notion not being the same as logical
negation down his neck. He slinked off the sub-thread.
You did not. I did not.
MG
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kadaitcha Man" |
|
| Title: Re: No evidence of God yet... |
05 Mar 2004 04:42:01 AM |
|
|
MG wrote:
TehGhodTrole wrote:
MG wrote:
It's a *concept term*, not a "hypothetical" nor an "imagining with
no basis in fact".
I already rammed the idea of contrary notion not being the same as
logical negation down his neck. He slinked off the sub-thread.
You did not. I did not.
What are you blubbering on about now, chuckleboy?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Navigatorator" |
|
| Title: Re: No evidence of God yet... |
06 Mar 2004 03:35:25 AM |
|
|
Kadaitcha Man wrote:
MG wrote:
TehGhodTrole wrote:
MG wrote:
It's a *concept term*, not a "hypothetical" nor an "imagining with
no basis in fact".
I already rammed the idea of contrary notion not being the same as
logical negation down his neck. He slinked off the sub-thread.
You did not. I did not.
What are you blubbering on about now, chuckleboy?
"There is no God as proposed by you theists" is not a claim (statement
standing in need of proof), it is the denial (negation) of one,
knucklehead, and the burden of proof cannot be shifted to the denial:
Shifting the burden of proof is the fallacy of putting the burden of
proof on the person who denies or questions the assertion in question.
The source of the fallacy is the assumption that the assertion is true
unless proven otherwise.
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#shifting
Note 'denies or questions'? You need to learn how to distinguish between
assertion and denial (negation) of that assertion, knucklehead, as well
as learn where the burden of proof rests.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kadaitcha Man" |
|
| Title: Re: No evidence of God yet... |
06 Mar 2004 05:43:27 AM |
|
|
Navigatorator wrote:
Kadaitcha Man wrote:
MG wrote:
TehGhodTrole wrote:
MG wrote:
It's a *concept term*, not a "hypothetical" nor an "imagining with
no basis in fact".
I already rammed the idea of contrary notion not being the same as
logical negation down his neck. He slinked off the sub-thread.
You did not. I did not.
What are you blubbering on about now, chuckleboy?
"There is no God as proposed by you theists"
Where did that come from, chucklechops? It seems nobody but you was
discussing any kind of god at all. Are you now admitting that you imagine
things that are not there at all?
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "MG" |
|
| Title: Re: No evidence of God yet... |
06 Mar 2004 05:06:49 AM |
|
|
Kadaitcha Man wrote:
MG wrote:
TehGhodTrole wrote:
MG wrote:
It's a *concept term*, not a "hypothetical" nor an "imagining with
no basis in fact".
I already rammed the idea of contrary notion not being the same as
logical negation down his neck. He slinked off the sub-thread.
You did not. I did not.
What are you blubbering on about now, chuckleboy?
Chuckle. yeah - it was late again. I have a habit of sometimes not
looking at who sent the message before replying. D'oh.
MG
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kadaitcha Man" |
|
| Title: Re: No evidence of God yet... |
06 Mar 2004 05:35:52 AM |
|
|
MG wrote:
Kadaitcha Man wrote:
MG wrote:
TehGhodTrole wrote:
MG wrote:
It's a *concept term*, not a "hypothetical" nor an "imagining with
no basis in fact".
I already rammed the idea of contrary notion not being the same as
logical negation down his neck. He slinked off the sub-thread.
You did not. I did not.
What are you blubbering on about now, chuckleboy?
Chuckle. yeah - it was late again. I have a habit of sometimes not
looking at who sent the message before replying. D'oh.
I will take that as a concession that there is merit in my assertions that
you regularly tail-spin yourself around in a puddle of your own
pseudo-intellectual drool and become completely incoherent. But it's ok, it
won't invalidate the argument you so desperately want to make but haven't
yet.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Navigatorator" |
|
| Title: Re: No evidence of God yet... |
04 Mar 2004 12:00:01 PM |
|
|
TehGhodTrole wrote:
MG wrote:
It's a *concept term*, not a "hypothetical" nor an "imagining with no
basis in fact".
I already rammed the idea of contrary notion not being the same as logical
negation down his neck. He slinked off the sub-thread.
I haven't gone anywhere. I am still here pointing out your mistakes,
like the one just above here for example, knucklehead.
"There is no God" is not an assertion, it is the denial (negation) of
one, and the burden of proof cannot be shifted to the denial.
Shifting the burden of proof is the fallacy of putting the burden of
proof on the person who denies or questions the assertion in question.
The source of the fallacy is the assumption that the assertion is true
unless proven otherwise.
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#shifting
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sniper" |
|
| Title: Re: No evidence of God yet... |
29 Feb 2004 12:51:55 PM |
|
|
Navigator wrote:
MG wrote:
Navigator wrote:
[snip]
define your term, "higher being" in some kind of meaningful,
verifiable way,
Your theory of semantics (meaning) is mistaken. Propositions do not need
to be verifiable in order to be meaningful.
Example: There is a dead mouse in a hole which no one will ever examine.
Mice are already known to exist,...
Besides the point. You said propositions need to
be verifiable in order to be meaningful. Would
you like to add a qualifier now, or just appear
the ignorant twit you usually do?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Navigatorator" |
|
| Title: Re: No evidence of God yet... |
04 Mar 2004 02:25:32 PM |
|
|
Sniper wrote:
Navigator wrote:
MG wrote:
Navigator wrote:
[snip]
define your term, "higher being" in some kind of meaningful,
verifiable way,
Your theory of semantics (meaning) is mistaken. Propositions do not need
to be verifiable in order to be meaningful.
Example: There is a dead mouse in a hole which no one will ever examine.
Mice are already known to exist,...
... You said propositions need to
be verifiable in order to be meaningful...
No I did not. That must have been your straw man saying that. 8^)
It is just the opposite, you and MG insist that existential propositions
can be meaningful without being verifiable. See above.
All I did was point out that mice are already well defined and are
already known to exist, so mice have logically nothing to do with the
issue genuinely under discussion here, existential propositions like the
one that an invisible God might exist anyway, even though there is no
evidence of any such thing.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: No evidence of God yet... |
04 Mar 2004 08:49:00 PM |
|
|
In article <0hM1c.477551$na.1147539@attbi_s04>,
Navigatorator <navi@navi.com> wrote:
Sniper wrote:
Navigator wrote:
MG wrote:
Navigator wrote:
[snip]
define your term, "higher being" in some kind of meaningful,
verifiable way,
Your theory of semantics (meaning) is mistaken. Propositions do not need
to be verifiable in order to be meaningful.
Example: There is a dead mouse in a hole which no one will ever examine.
Mice are already known to exist,...
... You said propositions need to
be verifiable in order to be meaningful...
No I did not. That must have been your straw man saying that. 8^)
Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple , denies here saying what he has said.
That a lie.
It is just the opposite, you and MG insist that existential propositions
can be meaningful without being verifiable. See above.
Does Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, reject that statement or accept it?
[ Irrelevancy Deleted ]
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Antiseptic" |
|
| Title: Re: No evidence of Septic's brain yet... |
04 Mar 2004 02:52:35 PM |
|
|
Navigatorator (aka Skeptic, aka Muddy Boggs) wrote:
Sniper wrote:
Navigator wrote:
MG wrote:
Navigator wrote:
[snip]
define your term, "higher being" in some kind of meaningful,
verifiable way,
Your theory of semantics (meaning) is mistaken. Propositions do not need
to be verifiable in order to be meaningful.
Example: There is a dead mouse in a hole which no one will ever examine.
Mice are already known to exist,...
... You said propositions need to
be verifiable in order to be meaningful...
No I did not. That must have been your straw man saying that. 8^)
It is just the opposite, you and MG insist that existential propositions
can be meaningful without being verifiable. See above.
Rhetorical question: Are you really this stupid?
Ok, now that we have that out of the way, let me
point out to you that stating to you existential
propositions can be meaningful without being, as
you put it, verifiable, was a refutation of your
idiotic claim that statements must be verifiable
in order to be meaningful. Then again, all of us
know your definition of meaningful propositions:
:We know that 'dog' is a very meaningful proposition.
:
: - Skeptic
BWWAHAHAHA! Your logic staggers the imagination!
Try this: It's likely that extraterrestrial life
exists". Is that a meaningless proposition, son?
[]
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "MG" |
|
| Title: Re: Navigator - the crackpot liar and decietful charlatan |
26 Feb 2004 04:28:55 PM |
|
|
Navigator wrote:
TehGhodTrole wrote:
Icarus wrote:
TehGhodTrole wrote:
Virgil wrote:
There is nothing in the above which excludes any theist
belief, it only objects to certain theist habits of imposing
their views on others.
Pity it doesn't deal with idiot atheists who demand proof or
evidence of things for which there is neither proof nor
evidence, only rational explanation, eh.
What rational explanation is that?
This one:
The existence of a higher being can neither be proved nor disproved.
If there is no way to know it, in the human experience, if that
proposition were false, then it is simply meaningless metaphysical
speculation.
So you keep saying - but it's not semantically meaningless. Qua
speculation it is self-evidently semantically meaningful. It couldn't be
*speculation* otherwise.
Now if you mean to insist simply that it is *scientifically*
meaningless, then you could be right, depending on whether your
falsificationism is a correct analysis of scientific method.
Unfortunately for you, it's not. Popper's approach still has a few
suporters clinging to a raft after Kuhn and others torpedoed his ship -
I know, I've seen them at a conference on Popper's philosophy.
But we don;t have to make the mistake that you and Popper make of
thinking that only scientifically falsifiable statements are
semantically meaningful. It just isn't true, and is self-contradictory,
and that has been known since the death of logical positivism.
Here's a reductio of your position: Let's take your sentence above
"If there is no way to know [that "God is real"], in the human
experience, if that proposition were false, then it is simply
meaningless metaphysical speculation."
So says you and so says Popper. But now tell us how we can know that
*that* sentence is false? Tell us *how* we could possibly falsify that
sentence! Tell us what possible experience would show us that that
sentence was false? In the absence of such evidence we must consign your
sentence to the Popperian pile of "meaningless metaphysical
speculation". It's self-defeating.
MG.
And as far as the truth of it is concerned, you are mistaken; it can
certainly be shown to be true simply by presenting any single instance
of a "higher being" (whatever you imagine that is).
.
|
|
|
| User: "Navigatorator" |
|
| Title: Re: "There is no God" |
04 Mar 2004 06:57:27 PM |
|
|
MG wrote:
... Let's take your sentence above
"If there is no way to know it, in the human
experience, if the statement 'A magic
invisible God might exist anyway, even though
there is no evidence of such a thing'
were false, then it is simply
meaningless metaphysical speculation."
So says you and so says Popper. But now tell us how we can know that
*that* sentence is false?
You mean how would we ever know it, in the human experience, if that
statement were false? Isn't it obvious?
We would all know it if it were false if you were to demonstrate how it
would ever be known if "A magic invisible God might exist, even though
there is no evidence of any such thing" were false, even if it were
false. Then that particular statement would immediately become a
meaningful, scientific statement.
For example, "There is no God" is a meaningful, scientific statement
about the universe (a universal statement) since we would all know it
immediately if it were false, that is to say, if there were a God
evident (where 'evident' means clear to human vision or understanding in
some way).
[We all know it right now that "There is no Sun" is false, since the
star we call The Sun is evident to all, right?]
This is all about how evidence works, right?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: "There is no God" |
04 Mar 2004 11:05:25 PM |
|
|
In article <XfQ1c.41559$ko6.361143@attbi_s02>,
Navigatorator <navi@navi.com> wrote:
For example, "There is no God" is a meaningful, scientific statement
about the universe (a universal statement) since we would all know it
immediately if it were false, that is to say, if there were a God
evident (where 'evident' means clear to human vision or understanding in
some way).
To hoist you on your own petard, until the issue of what a god is (which
does not require that any more instantiation than does the issue of what
a unicorn is), what is "evident" is not evident.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Navigatorator" |
|
| Title: Re: "There is no God" |
05 Mar 2004 12:00:07 PM |
|
|
Virgil wrote:
In article <XfQ1c.41559$ko6.361143@attbi_s02>,
Navigatorator <navi@navi.com> wrote:
For example, "There is no God" is a meaningful, scientific statement
about the universe (a universal statement) since we would all know it
immediately if it were false, that is to say, if there were a God
evident (where 'evident' means clear to human vision or understanding in
some way).
To hoist you on your own petard, until the issue of what a god is (which
does not require that any more instantiation than does the issue of what
a unicorn is), what is "evident" is not evident.
When you say things like "the issue of what God is," or "the issue of
what a unicorn is," you are assuming your conclusion that a God is, or a
unicorn is. That's known as begging the question. That's not allowed.
The issue isn't what God is, the issue is is there a
God as hypothesized by the true believers?
Explaining in some kind of meaningful, verifiable way what the proposed
thing is imagined to be is entirely up to the proponents of it,
knucklehead. The atheists have nothing (no thing) to explain.
The fact remains that "There is no God" is still a meaningful,
scientific statement about the universe (a universal statement) since we
would all know it immediately if it were false, that is to say, if there
were a God evident (where 'evident' means clear to human vision or
understanding in some way).
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kenny Leong" |
|
| Title: Re: "There is no God" |
06 Mar 2004 08:44:50 AM |
|
|
Navigatorator <navi@navi.com> wrote in message news:<XfQ1c.41559$ko6.361143@attbi_s02>...
MG wrote:
... Let's take your sentence above
"If there is no way to know it, in the human
experience, if the statement 'A magic
invisible God might exist anyway, even though
there is no evidence of such a thing'
were false, then it is simply
meaningless metaphysical speculation."
So says you and so says Popper. But now tell us how we can know that
*that* sentence is false?
You mean how would we ever know it, in the human experience, if that
statement were false? Isn't it obvious?
We would all know it if it were false if you were to demonstrate how it
would ever be known if "A magic invisible God might exist, even though
there is no evidence of any such thing" were false, even if it were
false. Then that particular statement would immediately become a
meaningful, scientific statement.
For example, "There is no God" is a meaningful, scientific statement
about the universe (a universal statement) since we would all know it
immediately if it were false, that is to say, if there were a God
evident (where 'evident' means clear to human vision or understanding in
some way).
[We all know it right now that "There is no Sun" is false, since the
star we call The Sun is evident to all, right?]
This is all about how evidence works, right?
Not only is that is about how evidence works. It is also important to
have 'definition'. So, if somebody talks about a 'god', then the
attributes and characteristics of this 'god' must be clearly defined.
Then, we would need either real evidence to back up claims that this
'god' exists, or the description fits something that could be
believable (that is, falls into a category that could be compatible
with real world observation, experience, or experiments). The god that
is described in the bible doesn't even get past the stage of being
compatible with ITSELF, let alone real world experience. So obviously
the christian bible is fatally flawed. And if the bible is flawed,
then it ITSELF must be fixed up and amended before even proceeding to
discuss this 'god' any further. Until then...the whole thing is an
obvious hoax.
Kenny L.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Navigatorator" |
|
| Title: Re: "There is no God" |
06 Mar 2004 12:02:49 PM |
|
|
Kenny Leong wrote:
Navigatorator <navi@navi.com> wrote in message news:<XfQ1c.41559$ko6.361143@attbi_s02>...
MG wrote:
... Let's take your sentence above
"If there is no way to know it, in the human
experience, if the statement 'A magic
invisible God might exist anyway, even though
there is no evidence of such a thing'
were false, then it is simply
meaningless metaphysical speculation."
So says you and so says Popper. But now tell us how we can know that
*that* sentence is false?
You mean how would we ever know it, in the human experience, if that
statement were false? Isn't it obvious?
We would all know it if it were false if you were to demonstrate how it
would ever be known if "A magic invisible God might exist, even though
there is no evidence of any such thing" were false, even if it were
false. Then that particular statement would immediately become a
meaningful, scientific statement.
For example, "There is no God" is a meaningful, scientific statement
about the universe (a universal statement) since we would all know it
immediately if it were false, that is to say, if there were a God
evident (where 'evident' means clear to human vision or understanding in
some way).
[We all know it right now that "There is no Sun" is false, since the
star we call The Sun is evident to all, right?]
This is all about how evidence works, right?
Not only is that is about how evidence works. It is also important to
have 'definition'. So, if somebody talks about a 'god', then the
attributes and characteristics of this 'god' must be clearly defined.
Then, we would need either real evidence to back up claims that this
'god' exists, or the description fits something that could be
believable (that is, falls into a category that could be compatible
with real world observation, experience, or experiments). The god that
is described in the bible doesn't even get past the stage of being
compatible with ITSELF, let alone real world experience. So obviously
the christian bible is fatally flawed. And if the bible is flawed,
then it ITSELF must be fixed up and amended before even proceeding to
discuss this 'god' any further. Until then...the whole thing is an
obvious hoax.
Kenny L.
Right on.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: "There is no God" DEFINE IT |
06 Mar 2004 04:50:08 PM |
|
|
Kenny Leong wrote:
Navigatorator <navi@navi.com> wrote in message news:<XfQ1c.41559$ko6.361143@attbi_s02>...
MG wrote:
... Let's take your sentence above
"If there is no way to know it, in the human
experience, if the stat | | | | |
