Total posts: 14,582
-->
@ethang5
Even the bible agrees that God is not observable, but it is a logical leap to go from that to God not existing.
Just like BigFoot.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
That which can observe is therefore observable.Whether that be extra-sensory, ergo sensory observability, or internal data processing/thoughtful observance.
Private information (gnosis) is INDISTINGUISHABLE FROM PURE IMAGINATION (Qualia).
Created:
-->
@ethang5
But...."That which cannot be observed is therefore nonexistent."Doesn't get the approval of logic.
Please present your preferred definition of "exists".
Created:
-->
@PressF4Respect
AND HAS ABSOLUTELY ZERO BEARING ON OUR DAILY LIVES AND OR OUR CONCEPTS OF HUMAN MORALITY.Yes, but this is besides my point.
I'm pretty certain that is the ONLY POINT.
The only reason anyone insists that their favorite hypothetical gods are REAL-TRUE-FACT is because they want to validate imposing their MORAL CODE on everyone.
Created:
-->
@Athias
So let me ask you this: do you believe that the absence of a counterargument mitigates your onus?
I believe that every claim and every counter-claim must be supported by a sound logical statement based on explicit AXIOMS.
Pretending to shift the burden-of-proof exclusively to one side is a logical fallacy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Either way, I want to know when politicians are corrupt rather than being blissfully unaware.
Thanks for this gem.
Created:
-->
@PressF4Respect
The gods that are possible are necessarily (EITHER) incomprehensible (OR) indistinguishable from pure imagination.It's basically Russel's Teapot worded differently. We can't say for sure that there isn't a teapot with X characteristics in between Earth and Mars, but it would be more of a stretch to say that there is, without concrete evidence to back it up.
It is, however, perfectly safe to say that Russel's Teapot is INDISTINGUISHABLE FROM PURE IMAGINATION AND HAS ABSOLUTELY ZERO BEARING ON OUR DAILY LIVES AND OR OUR CONCEPTS OF HUMAN MORALITY.
Created:
-->
@PressF4Respect
This makes every voice the voice of god and every book the word of god.If you think that god IS the universe, then this would be the case. What most theists believe is that their god/gods created the universe, and is therefore outside of it.
I'm not really sure how you're getting the "outside of it" part.
The most common definition I've found is the "omnipotent", "omniscient", "omnibenevolent", "creator" (OOOC or 3OC).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
1) asking a foreign national for a thing of value to help you in a campaign is a crime. so when trump asked for [announcement of an investigation] on biden, by name, on that call he committed a crime. We have known this since the transcript was released.
A+
2) using the power of your public office for personal gain. Trump used the power of the presidency, by withholding aid and dangling a state visit, in order to personally profit himself by getting dirt on a political rival. We already know he blocked the aid and dangled the state visit. We know the ukranians planned to give him the [announcement of an investigation] he wanted. We already know he committed this crime as well.
A+
3) trump has committed obstruction of justice and witness tampering during the impeachment. By ordering witnesses not to testify, refusing to provide documents and threatening witnesses he has committed some new crimes during his attempted cover up. so we already know he has committed these too.
A+
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
UNLESS IT'S TRUMP.Either way, I want to know when politicians are corrupt rather than being blissfully unaware.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
So, they only have a problem with Trump looking into him because he is the best candidate to beat Trump?
What is the crime Joe Biden is accused of?
And even if there was a credible allegation of an actual crime, why doesn't Trump just order an investigation through the DOJ?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
What crime is Hunter Biden accused of again?Possibly conspiracy to defraud the taxpayer.
Based on what specifically?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
If suspects were presumed-innocent, they would be free to roam the streets until their court dates.but that does happen, even without having to put up a bond/bail so I don't understand what you are talking about. (released on recognizance)suspicion is not proof
Most people who are picked-up on suspicion are held until trial. That's the opposite of "presumed-innocent". Also, the media is quick to publish allegations and potential legal charges BEFORE a person is even tried. That's the opposite of "presumed-innocent".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
Okay, I was slightly off. He was investigating the company that Hunter Biden worked at, not specifically his son.
Before Shokin was fired, he had been conducting an investigation of Burisma, and Hunter Biden allegedly was a subject. But the investigation had been inactive for over a year by the time Joe Biden pushed for Shokin’s ouster. [LINK]
You might want to read-up on Viktor Shokin before you start crying about his removal.
And even after Viktor Shokin was removed, the Burisma investigation was re-opened in February 2019. [LINK]
What crime is Hunter Biden accused of again?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
There is no law that stipulates the "probable cause" that leads to an investigation must be 100% true.Misleading the court to spy on a political opponent by using the Christopher Steele Dossier which was funded by Fusion GPS and the DNC...aka Hillary Clinton spied on the Trump Campaign
The evidence is presented to the FISA court, and the court decides if that evidence is actionable.
Otherwise, every nosey-neighbor who reported suspicious activity to the cops that turned out to be unverifiable would be hauled off to prison.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
...in the U.S. you are innocent until PROVEN guilty, thinking, inferring, assuming etc is not proof.
This isn't even slightly true. If suspects were presumed-innocent, they would be free to roam the streets until their court dates.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
1) they refused to tell anyone why the aid was blocked and didn't tell anyone in congress about it at all
Not technically illegal.
2) trump channeled as much as possible through Giuliani, his personal attorney who had no official connection to the government, and not a member of the state department
Not technically illegal.
3) the white house attorney, after receiving complaints about the call, put the transcript in a highly restricted computer (which is not a normal practice)
Not technically illegal.
These all show aspects of a guilty mind.
Dime-store-psychoanalysis also known as the-mind-reader-fallacy.
Not telling anyone what they were doing, funneling the conversation away from official channels and into an unofficial one and hiding the transcript after the fact are all evidence that they knew what they were doing was wrong and didn't want anyone to find out about it.
Not necessarily. It could be gross-incompetence. Or sheer-genius.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
started on hearsay and lies.Illegally started. FISA Abuse
Which law was violated?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
I mean, Biden said during an interview that he forced Ukrainian leaders to fire the prosecutor...
Yes, I saw this part,
...who was investigating his son.
Please show me this part.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
So, then you would agree that there should have been no investigation of Russia collusion with Trump, yes? There was no evidence of that.
Correct. According to the proposed "no investigation without being caught red-handed" standard.
On the other hand, there was evidence of Biden having a prosecutor in Ukraine fired because he was looking into Hunter Biden.
Based on what exactly? Certainly the prosecutor was fired, but they were widely regarded as corrupt.
Seems like there is enough evidence to take a look into that.
Is there INCONTROVERTIBLE PROOF of a crime?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
While I would like to think that the FBI would be capable of such an investigation, I have seen nothing but anti-Trump blatant partisanship going on with them. Look at Hillary destroying thousands of emails! She didn't get in trouble for THAT? So, I highly doubt that they would actually investigate a Democrat that they think can beat orange man.Even if I accepted your premise, it is still a ridiculous argument. You are essentially saying that he didn't think the FBI would do their job, so he decided to commit several crimes to investigate a potential crime. It doesn't really make sense and it wouldn't absolve him of any guilt for the multiple crimes he committed.
Well stated.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
Oh, the dumb-dumb defense....that the defendant knew generally that his conduct was unlawful.
But I thought Trump was a Very-Stable-Genius?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
Trump shouldn't be investigated unless there is INCONTROVERTIBLE PROOF of a crime.I don't see why people have issues with Trump asking about Biden. If they find out that Biden has done very corrupt things(which he has), isn't it in the interest of the American people to know about that corruption? Shouldn't it be a secondary concern that they are political rivals?
Where's the proof?
Biden shouldn't be investigated unless there is INCONTROVERTIBLE PROOF of a crime.
Where's the proof?
It's called: Uniform-Standards-of-Evidence.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
If you deny a personal Being as responsible for creating the universe you would have a naturalistic and materialistic worldview by default.
Not necessarily. One could be a DEIST and or an IDEALIST.
Since you continually deny God and fight for a naturalistic explanation alone your worldview points to chance happenstance as the explanation for our existence.
Not necessarily. DEISM does not rule-out an "intelligent" "designer" and or (a non-random) NOUMENON.
Created:
-->
@PressF4Respect
This doesn’t mean that there is 100% no god.
The claim that "god exists" is an appeal to ignorance if you refuse to define which specific version of gods you are referring to.
The gods that most people care about proving are logically incoherent.
People only care about the hypothetical existence of gods (IFF) it empowers them in some way.
Only logically incoherent gods bestow wisdom to special specific chosen prophets and make them write dusty old books of rules.
The gods that are possible are necessarily (EITHER) incomprehensible (OR) indistinguishable from pure imagination.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
“Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way.
This doesn't sound like "objective morality" to me.
The actual law of god says, "if you violate the marriage covenant, both violators are to be killed".
All you're doing is proving that your hypothetical god constantly changes its mind.
Created:
-->
@Athias
An argument was made.
Actually, a claim was made.
No one is claiming to have provided a counterargument.
My point exactly.
Created:
-->
@PressF4Respect
If you believe that an infinite god exists, then everything that exists must be part of this infinite god.
This makes every voice the voice of god and every book the word of god.
Created:
-->
@Athias
If I state, "prove it" what is the actual argument? Is there no such thing as scrutiny in debate?
What you're describing is called, "gainsaying". [LINK]
Created:
-->
@ethang5
Please substantiate your claim.Spirituality has nothing to do with entities or belief in entities.
I'm willing to entertain any definition of "spirituality" you personally prefer.
Created:
-->
@ethang5
(IFF) spirituality = belief in entities that are not scientifically observable
(AND) belief in entities that are not scientifically observable = delusional (THEN)...
"All spirituality is delusional."
Created:
-->
@PressF4Respect
It's AXIOMATIC. (IFF) god = infinite (AND) god = exists (THEN) exists = godThis would work, if the premises are substantiated. They’re not.
It's a conditional statement.
If you believe that an infinite god exists, then everything that exists must be part of this infinite god.
Created:
-->
@Athias
Not necessarily. Only that "truth" can be subject to perspective. As you so aptly demonstrated, changing the "metric" changed its "truth."
Now you know why I like to nail down those DEFINITIONS.
Created:
-->
@Athias
If I told you that I had a BlimGlorp, which I describe to you as a ten-story-tall, 700 ton elephant sculpture in my room, and when you came over, you found that it was actually a small plastic toy that could fit in the palm of your hand, would you consider my original claim "true" (with a false or inaccurate description)?I mean, I did indeed have a BlimGlorp, so...And it was 10 stories tall (if you compare it to a miniature skyscraper)...And it was 700 tons (if you use purely imaginary measurements)...I believe you've answered your own question.
So are you suggesting that your idea of "truth" can include a false description?
Created:
-->
@PressF4Respect
But what we CAN do is analyze the DESCRIPTIONS of these god claims and identify multiple critical and fundamental logical incongruities.We can be quite certain that incoherent descriptions of gods are FALSE descriptions.True, but this isn't addressed to a particular god, only "god" in the general sense.
That works great for a DEISTIC god.
But it's important to remember that DEISM is functionally identical to ATHEISM.
Every religion that believes in a holy-lawmaker believes in a logically incoherent description of gods.
Created:
-->
@PressF4Respect
Similarly, since God exists outside of the observable universe,Not necessarily, consider Spinoza's perfectly logical god.Where did this "perfectly logical god" come from? Did it create itself?
It's AXIOMATIC. (IFF) god = infinite (AND) god = exists (THEN) exists = god
Created:
-->
@Athias
If I told you that I had a BlimGlorp, which I describe to you as a ten-story-tall, 700 ton elephant sculpture in my room, and when you came over, you found that it was actually a small plastic toy that could fit in the palm of your hand, would you consider my original claim "true" (with a false or inaccurate description)?And it's important to note that a false description =/= false object.
I mean, I did indeed have a BlimGlorp, so...
And it was 10 stories tall (if you compare it to a miniature skyscraper)...
And it was 700 tons (if you use purely imaginary measurements)...
Created:
-->
@Athias
You're right.Furthermore, if something does have description, it is perceivable; if it's perceivable, it must exist.
Just like BigFoot.
Created:
-->
@PressF4Respect
Similarly, since God exists outside of the observable universe,
Not necessarily, consider Spinoza's perfectly logical god.
...and we are unable to observe anything outside of the universe,
At least at this particular moment.
...we will never be able to 100% know whether a particular god/set of gods exists or not.
But what we CAN do is analyze the DESCRIPTIONS of these god claims and identify multiple critical and fundamental logical incongruities.
We can be quite certain that incoherent descriptions of gods are FALSE descriptions.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
But only for unfaithfulness BEFORE marriage.Yet Moses permitted divorce.
If you were unfaithful while married, then you were killed.
Created:
-->
@Athias
My statement made that arrangement clear.
p: I can believe spirituality is false.
q: Therefore, I do believe spirituality is false.
Hack away.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
Fornication is what unmarried people do.What is the fornication spoken of if not adultery?
Adultery is what married people do.
Basically you could get divorced if your wife was already 2 months pregnant when you married her.
That was it.
If your wife or husband broke the marriage covenant, then they were killed.
Ipso facto, not divorced.
Created:
-->
@Athias
Why on earth would you ask someone to prove BigFoot is false unless you believe that BigFoot is real?\\Are you qualifying scrutiny using one's motives?
I'm suggesting that it is reasonable to infer someone's argument based on their demands.
Especially if they refuse to clarify their position.
Created:
-->
@Athias
If the critic is unable or unwilling to make a counter-claim, then they are making a de facto appeal-to-ignorance.No.
What are they appealing to? What type of argument would you say they are making?
Created:
-->
@Athias
They believe that if they can merely cast doubt on certain obscure peripheral details of their opponent's argument (or pepper enough ridicule and ad hominems into their diatribe), then they are automatically proven correct without ever having to state their own argument.More projection; no one is stating that their position is validated in the wake of one's failure to substantiate the contrary.
You can't expect someone who refuses to make a counter-claim to explicitly state their opponent is wrong.
For example, I someone says, "you must support your claim that BigFoot is real", wouldn't you agree that would be a de facto argument supporting the hypothesis that BigFoot is fake?
Oh, but they didn't EXPLICITLY say "BigFoot is fake"... Of course not. Not all arguments are necessarily EXPLICIT (but they should be).
Created:
-->
@Athias
you are hiding behind the massive and very blurry wall known as the ambiguity fallacy (also known as the appeal to ignorance).This is projection based on your non sequitur.
If the critic is unable or unwilling to make a counter-claim, then they are making a de facto appeal-to-ignorance.
Created:
-->
@Athias
Both sides should be able to make positive statements and provide logical support.This is basic.Both sides should be able; that is not the same as both sides being bound to make positive statements and provide logical support.
If you neglect this step, then you end up playing the Burden-of-Proof ping-pong-game all day and all night.
Created:
-->
@Athias
If you make exceptions for certain claims without qualifying those exceptions then you are guilty of "special-pleading".Where and by whom were these exceptions made?
Here's the claim.
BigFoot (spirituality and or god) is false.
Here's your response.
Prove it.
Why on earth would you ask someone to prove BigFoot is false unless you believe that BigFoot is real?
You claim this is a "strawman" but instead of clarifying your position, which should be quite simple, you pretend you have no opinion.
Created:
-->
@Athias
The Christians believe that the Hindus are delusional.Which Christians?
TAUTOLOGICALLY.
A Christian = someone who believes JESUS is real and all other religions are FALSE.
Created:
-->
@ethang5
Both sides should be able to make positive statements and provide logical support.
This is basic.
If you constantly attack without making any positive statements and refuse to clarify your criticisms when paraphrased (Nuh-uh that's not what I said, go back and read the words and prove it, you can't prove me wrong!) you are hiding behind the massive and very blurry wall known as the ambiguity fallacy (also known as the appeal to ignorance). These individuals may (or may not) have a coherent position (as they often repeatedly claim in vague terms and bald assertions), but regardless, inexplicably refuse to communicate. They mistakenly believe that the darkness gives them the benefit of the doubt.
They believe that if they can merely cast doubt on certain obscure peripheral details of their opponent's argument (or pepper enough ridicule and ad hominems into their diatribe), then they are automatically proven correct without ever having to state their own argument.
However, based on epistemological standards of evidence, they do not have the benefit of the doubt. You must show your logic, because without evidence to the contrary, your position is logically incoherent.
I call these creatures the "Gingerbread Men".
Created: