Ehyeh

I don't know. Just like you dont know when you tie your shoelaces you're actually tying them within noumenon and not just phenomena. Can you show me how you can know you actually tie your shoelaces beyond simple imagination?

"The whole point of self-consistency is that the laws haven't "fallen apart" yet, and they are highly unlikely to ever do so. I'm not saying that observations are foolproof, but they're all I've got.

"functionally indistinguishable from imaginary"

You dont know that.

Hegel makes very strong arguments for God. Give them a google! there's many strong arguments for god, Thomas Aquinas makes a good shot through the transience of the universe. There's really 3 options to the creation of the universe

1. It came from nothing

2. It has always existed

3. God created it (either from nothing or himself).

To say this is simply imaginary is, a bit silly in my eyes. You have no idea, there could be many levels to reality (matter) and reality our senses simply cant see. This then means God is one of the 3 main arguments to the necessary creation of the universe, this is different from the tooth fairy, as no matter what way we put it there is no world in which the tooth fairy can be a priori or necessary for experience itself (unlike God).

You're clearly not an agnostic atheist to have the hubris to say God is "imaginary" (which you cant prove).

Atheism: "simply a lack of belief"

Self consistency is irrelevant if these laws can  (in theory) fall apart at any minute. That's the problem of induction. Imagine Descartes's evil demon tricking your eyes into seeing your shoelaces as tied through your perception of phenomena but in the noumenon you're actually untying them. I think viewing a belief in God like believing in the tooth fairy completely unsymmetrical. There's very strong scientific and philosophical arguments to the existence (or necessity) of god. The tooth fairy is much more disconnected from any necessity of reality. If you think god (at least an infinite concept of god) has "blank spots" you would be incorrect. Its simply by definition impossible to assert or deny any sort of "blank spot". 

Humans wont die out if we didnt have phones, which is the main point. They're not a necessity for the humans species to survive. They may be essential for modern society but that's different from what we were talking about. 

I've already explained. Every group of people on the planet have believed in some form of higher power or supernaturalism life after death in some form. The concept of God appeals to us in the same way a piece of bread may, we through induction choose to have hope the next piece of bread will fill our stomachs without actual certainty. In this same sense many have faith in a god as a ways to continue their lives even after death. 

Yeah though that doesn't make god any less essential for many humans, just like a parent is essential for a child.

Something being easier is distinct from necessary. Many animals (at least the males) evolved to be raised by their mother and then sent off to find their own pack (0f women) when they're an adult. I see little reason why humans couldn't of evolved this way. Obviously we evolved the way we did as it was more pragmatic and better, yet there's no reason as to why this way of evolution of needing a big social group was necessary. It still seems like these things exist in degrees, and it still seems like god infiltrates into these degrees of necessity.

IPhone's aren't necessary for the continued existence of humanity.

Is social interaction required for human survival? in certain scenarios it is, others i don't think so. Some people are skilled survivors and could survive on their own. Would you say community and having a social life is therefore unnecessary, or a lack of requirement for some peoples? Even if God doesn't impart on the material or make crops grow (at least in a way we can test and verify) The idea of God still appeals to our survival instincts in the same sense a piece of bread does, as it offers us a chance or belief of a continued existence in some manner. Most animist religions believed in a spirit world, demons, ghosts etc.

What happens when we fulfill those needs? it turns out humans now have more needs which need to be fulfilled and if they're not you wont be happy (such as the need for entertainment and social interaction). God can easily fall under this category and in a sense falls under the category for survival itself (if this god implies an afterlife).

It seems apparent to me that the usage of metaphors was extremely common in the bible. Again, it could simply be a metaphor, i would ask gotquestions.org

Its also true they did say god is not a man, so i would assume its not a contradiction but simply a metaphor for relateability.

"I would would agree that faith based on empirical evidence is necessary for us to function within our perception of reality. Religious belief requires no such evidence."

I get the sense this is an appeal to vagueness. Which empirical beliefs are necessary for day to day functioning? I feel like it exists in a manner of degrees. Some people are fine not believing in free will, some people even seem fine being unsure of what will happen tomorrow.  In this same sense some are fine not being religious or fine with god not existing, others not so much!

I'm not too sure, im not a Christian. There could be many reasons why, it could simply be relateability to common people, etc. 

It seems we ought to agree faith is pragmatically necessary then once we shed all our assumptions.

That's not really true at all. Christian religions say God is completely unconceptualizable, he cant be put into boxes not does he have characteristic or sin like humans. Just because God is "person" doesn't mean he's one like a man or human.

If I google "theism definition" many definitions will include a pantheistic conception of God. 

Theistic: relating to or characterized by belief in the existence of a god or gods.

 Theism or metaphysical personocracy (especially in cosmocentric theism in which God is the origin of cosmogony) is broadly defined as the belief in the existence of a supreme being or deities.

From the wiki of theism 

Pantheism: a doctrine which identifies God with the universe, or regards the universe as a manifestation of God. Many theists do believe God is intelligent, although that's generally more panentheistic, most people interchange them.

I would hold that we need faith in everything unless you can solve the problem of induction, that's the necessary conclusion. How can you be sure your family and friends don't laugh at you behind your back and are simply aliens conducting a trumanesque experiment on you? Even if you think that's unlikely. Its not certain, there's no reason to think the sun couldn't just disappear any moment. Can you show how its a false equivocation? i believe you have an unjustified proposition there.

That's odd. I feel like God is far more likely to exist than not. You see how we're back at square one simply by me stating that? if I simply choose to argue for an infinite god, he becomes impossible to assert or deny. Why would you hedge bets for or against infinity? How can you even create a probability against infinity?

We all know its bullshit that atheism simply means "lack of belief" even if that's the case in the dictionary.  Most atheists are directly against the concept of god. I think the definition of agnostic should be broadened to mean lack of belief, at least then people who don't just lack of belief but make affirmative points to the contrary aren't considered "agnostic" like they are in the atheist grouping.

Why is a pantheist conception of god non-theist? 

Read my very first post. Im directly talking about atheists who say God does not exist (which are many). Are you someone who believes in nothing? I cant imagine you don't have faith in some things existing. If you do have faith in things existing are you then not appealing to vagueness and probability? At what probability does something become justified belief?

In my original comment i was referring to those who directly don't believe in a god. I find it a silly semantic game to say "atheism simply means lack of belief" that's literally what agnostic means too. So what is the dividing factor? If to simply lack belief means to not affirm anything, why not simply call yourself agnostic? it would make much more semantic sense.

Atheist: a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.

Agnostic: a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God.

 Its evident most atheists take a harder stance against god compared to agnostics. Agnostics refrain from belief and lack of believe and say its unknowable. Atheists refrain belief, meaning they don't believe, compared to agnostics not believing or not not believing. Unless you believe its impossible for someone to do this? (which I would say is nonsense). Someone can be an agnostic theist (things gods unknowable but believes) someone can be an agnostic atheist (thinks gods unknowable but chooses not to believe). Evidently this shows they're different.

Likelihood's are irrelevant, I want sure knowledge of ALL gods not existing. I also think once we conceptualise an infinite god the ability to falsify them through looking at reality becomes impossible. If someone is an atheist, they evidently must believe all gods cant be real. That is then their burden of proof, not mine. Hitchens razor.

I don't think they're fully symmetrical. The major symmetry breaker I would posit is the fact that the baby is attached to the mother and reliant on her (therefore it sanctifies her bodily autonomy). The father never gives up his body to the baby when he chooses to impregnate a woman. When a father decides not to pay child support its not "his body" he has to give up but his material wealth. There's nothing within law saying you don't have certain material obligations to people (taxes). On another note, considering we seem to agree quite a lot on transgenderism, would you like to challenge my idea that transgenderism can be consistent if we consider transgender people a 3rd gender?

It seems to me that atheists are hypocrites (atheists in the form of those who say there is no god). I want to write this post to see where (and if) my logic has gone astray. If we go into meditation and assume nothing (as Descartes did), I'm unsure how you can outright decide God cannot exist. As it would appear, there's not very much we can be certain of! It is evident our senses are untrustworthy (as shown by Socrates in Phaedo). To be sure of naturalism, physicalism, materialism, etc, you must first assume your senses to a pretty high degree to be correct. Yet there's really not a very philosophical reason to believe this outside of pragmatism. If the things we see cannot be proven to be mind-independent or real, Why are people so quick to assume God is a logical absurdity? It appears to me almost everything in this world (currently) requires some element of faith, this element of reality is exemplified by the problem of induction. Prove me wrong.

There is no excuse for why the website should be buggy on phone. Telling people to just "use a computer" is not a good  business model. People should be able to use their phones effectively on this site like you can on most others.

I'm very sad about DDO dying, it made me lose contact with my strongest debate partner/teacher in a sense. 

Fair enough. If you don't want to debate it, I understand. Sorry if I was rude, since it was obvious to me you don't actually want to debate the topic, I thought I may have to try and get you to want to do it through some other method. Sorry for my insolent behaviour, sir.

-

Considering the fact you would rather debate an expert (appeal to authority), my arguments will be inspired by someone far more knowledgeable than me within the domains of gender.

Devils advocate? Although I cannot say that transgender people are not the gender they identify with (there may be arguments I haven't considered), it is quite unlikely they are. Wouldn't it be satisfying to prove this condescending individual wrong? I know I would find it that way. You can do it. Take the debate. It's a win-win for you. I'm a 20% win rate debater, you see. You get to prove a condescending fool wrong while enlightening others and proving the truth of the transgender ideology to those who may not have previously agreed. Isn't that worthwhile? I'm a clown, you beat me any day of the week.

-

If you refuse to debate the topic and disdain those that do so because "it hurts people," then you're just a holy person. You're no different than the religious. You decide to have faith in a position so as to feel comfort. I think you arguing for determinism hurts people (studies prove it) yet that doesn't mean i think it shouldn't be debated.

He doesn't want the smoke bones, he senses we have the The Voynich Manuscript on transgenderism.

"If that’s what you believe, then you would have to be fine with a conjoined twin killing their twin in the name of bodily autonomy.  They are connected, so if bodily autonomy outweighs the right to life, then you would have to support one conjoined twin’s right to kill their twin."

This is only allowed in cases where one twin is reliant on the other for survival. In most conjoined twin cases, this isn't the reality. Although some pro lifers do argue against the humanhood of a fetus  (not necessarily a weak argument all the time) most pro choicers actually argue for personhood, not humanhood.

You seem far too prideful in your positions, that will ensure you start losing sooner or later. It shows an unwillingness to learn, to hear out another viewpoint. You will become stagnant and fall behind those with a more open mind through your dogmatic pride. I recommend you Spend some time pondering if you truly think you've found the complete truth.

Considering the fact that many people disagree, even within the philosophical community, it isn't so simple as "they are." Prove me wrong. I believe there were many points and arguments that could have been made in your previous transgender debate that weren't made and would/could make you think much harder on the position.

I can admit women can hookup with men, yet what I'm saying is it's much rarer than men wanting to do that. Women usually only hookup with men they would date. Nothing in my last comment contradicts that. Have you ignored the fact I've said some women will say yes to casual sex with a stranger? they're just 20x rarer than men.

 
I don't think I conceded anything. The original comment I made was in reference to the fact that I think Andrew Tate is correct in his assessment that men cheating isn't by default equal to a woman cheating. Your comment to me when I said this was:

-

I'm unsure if what I said in my last comment concedes anything? Your reply had nothing to do with monogamy, and women do prefer monogamy (overwhelmingly). Preferring a top 10% man and being willing to share, instead of being with an average guy in a monogamous relationship, has nothing to do with hookup culture. It also has nothing to do with cheating.
 

women are more likely to be bisexual than men. I would honestly make a strong argument for the idea that women who get involved in hookup culture probably have really shady pasts (there's studies on it), and they're likely (most of them) deeply insecure and broken women. Girls seem to be more open to the idea of sharing a man than men are to sharing a woman. Although women still seem to have a strong preference for monogamy when it's a realistic option. Most women would rather share a top 10% man with another girl than date an average, asf man in every regard and have it be monogamous. Which is honestly understandable if you look at the average man.

I'm unsure what your sources are trying to tell me. It doesn't even disagree with my perspective, it simply adds more nuance. Comparing human to fruit fly's is also pointless. All your second source says is male fruit fly's regulate their sperm depending on the mate. Yet it never debunks the claim the female fruit flys try to pick one superior mate. The first link just says a whole lot of nothing.

I've admitted girls can do hookups too. Its just obvious they do it far less than men. Women may have sex with male "friends" but most of those girls would also date those men if they asked if they're willing to have sex with them. I have little interest in your personal experience. It seems you think that women are overwhelmingly lying on an anonymous server? that's on you to prove the margin on error. I have little reason to believe most women are lying. Especially when I've seen guys to up to girls and ask them for sex and almost all of them say no.

Tate's' idea that it isn't always the same when a man and a woman cheat has some validity to me. Most men will have sex with a woman without being interested in dating her or having an emotional/romantic interest. For men, it can be a purely physical thing. For women, that seems to be much rarer. Most women won't have sex with a guy they wouldn't date. I believe there are truth nuggets in everything he says, but it's always a reduction of the whole. 

I've actually opened this link before. For some strange reason, I can't seem to find much of anything on the site! It's also a blog, not a scientific source. I'm unsure how negligible it will be. It seems the science says men are less culturally predisposed to changing sexuality through culture than women are. Women are much more flexible in changing their sexuality through culture. As with everything, I think it exists on a spectrum. Some are more prone to cultural influences, for others it is much more innate. Some who are gay would have been born that way, some I don't think would have been. Although it could be argued that culture is simply epigenetics (strong argument). I actually used that argument against you in your debate with Nyx, in the comment section. Culture is simply genetics changing themselves, or turning on and off. I think its rather safe to say some people feel gay/trans who wouldn't feel that way in a different (more sexually oppressive) time period.

Would you like to have a debate on whether trans women are women?

That's an interesting thought to have. I think it can be solved through coming to recognise that we can know something is true in our mind but not feel like it is true. A good example of this is those that smoke and are well aware of the consequences of it. These consequences don't feel real to them until it's too late most of the time. I would argue it's the same with dehumanisation.