Total posts: 7,093
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
So god does a low evil in his presence? You are retracting your claim that god does not allow evil 8in his presence?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Provide physical evidence of anything beyond the observable universe or limit your claims to the observable or I have no reason to accept your claims. This discussion is not going anywhere. Aren't you getting tired of repeating yourself?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
You can't make any accurate statements about it. Not if it isn't what it seems. Also you keep using words like repent and condemn and wicked. Reality does not exhibit any concern for wickedness or repentance and it is not observable able to condemn or forgive. Humans seem to be the only beings we can observe that concern themselves with such things.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
If it isn't as it appears then we can't make any accurate statements about it. If you can't make any accurate statements about it then your claims deserve to be dismissed. So where does that leave us?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Real/unreal is dichotomous. Things are either real or they are not. Realest is not A word Mr dictionary and it's a nonsensical idea besides.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
I don't care what you think only what you can prove.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
I used to be spiritual. I lost my faith because I examined my beliefs critically and logically and found that I had no evidence. We have had this discussion before.
As for testimonials christians often claim that only Jesus can lead to true spirituality while muslims often claim that only Mohamed can lead to true spirituality. Transendentalists may advise that only transcendental meditation can reveal the spirit world while shamanists may claim that only nature can reveal it. Any one of these groups might tell me that your spiritual position is herecy. Not every spiritual person can be simultaneously correct and none has any evidence beyond anecdotal. Under the circumstances I have no choice but to reject any claim that cannot be demonstrated.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Why do you assume that I believe based on my desired rather than by the observable evidence?
You also still haven't answered my question. I reject your claims where does that leave us?
Created:
Posted in:
What evidence do you need beyond testimonials? what evidence is congruent with spirituality?
If I drop a pen it falls. If I drop a bowling ball it falls with exactly the same acceleration (adjusted for wind resistance) this demonstrates gravity. Is there anything that demonstrates the spiritual as conclusively as the pen and the bowling ball demonstrate gravity? If you provide such a demonstration I will have no choice but to accept your claims.
The problem with testimonials is that I have heard many different often mutually exclusive claims about spirituality.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
What evidence is there beyond anecdotal testimony?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
I see no reason to think that evolution would make the existence of some god(s) impossible. That has never been my claim. My only claim in regard to god(s) is that there is no sufficient evidence to suggest any.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
It's not supposed to be anything. You don't start with a preconceived notion and make the evidence for that notion you start with the evidence and allow that to inform your understanding.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
Eikka is not deterred. Toward the winery is forward.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
The only thing that makes something true is if it is. If something is true no external agency is required to render it more true. Now stop changing the subject. Where does that leave us?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
I'm not denying that some things are true. You are proposing something else, something beyond just true things. You are the one who is making a distinction between the two concepts while simultaneously trying to blur the line between them. In any case you didn't answer my question so I will ask it again. Where does that leave us
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Evidence is my reason for accepting claims. I'm not going to compromise the integrity of logical conclusions based on evidence just so you can feel justified adopting a prescriptive tautology that you cannot demonstrate. So where does that leave us?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
There can only be a discussion if both sides are willing to have a discussion and agree to terms. It is this second requirement that we seem unable to attain. Unless we can agree to certain guidelines by which we make our argument then we are both wasting our time.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
why is it not reasonable to believe they are a revelation from God?What other religious views offer such detailed proofs that are relevant to history and from history we can go to show the reasonableness?If it is reasonable and logical why would you not believe it
You do understand that it is not my responsibility to disprove any claim don't you? It is instead the responsibility of the claimant to prove their claim.
Also reason and logic do not necessarily lead to truth unless accompanied by facts.
because then you would be accountable
I am accountable for my actions wether some god(s) exist or not and whether I am accountable for my actions or not has nothing to do with the truth value of any statement.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
If you are making a (bald) assertion and not an argument then we are not really having a discussion. I would prefer to have a discussion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Let me see if I can summarize your argument and if I get it wrong please let me know.
If I understand you correctly you are arguing that at some point some thing must either have began to exist without a cause or some thing must have existed eternally and that even though we have never observed either of these phenomena (unless you count quantum particles which do seem to begin existing without a cause but in that case we may simply be unable to observe the cause so we can ignore that for now if you like) that an eternal thing is not just more likely but the only reasonable option. Is that an accurate summation?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
I've given you plenty of time to think about it and you never have gotten back to me on this point.
Your premises are as follows.
number one that god is omniscient
number two that god is omnipotent
number three that god is omnipresent
number four that god does not allow evil to exist in his presence
number five that evil most definitely exists
According to premise number one evil cannot exist in god's presence without his knowledge.
According to premise number two evil cannot exist in god's presence without god allowing it to exist.
According to premise number three any evil that exist must be in god's presence.
If we accept the first three premises then either god allows evil to exist in his presence or no evil exists therefore premise four and premise five. are directly contradictory.
At the minimum one of your premises must be untrue which do you believe is most likely false?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
Because prophecy deals with an audience specific text and it is reasonable to believe that what is prophesied comes about. I listed one OT prophetic text (Daniel 9:24-27) and one NT text (the Olivet Discourse as laid out in the gospels and Revelation). These texts are most definitely audience specific and you could not demonstrate otherwise by going to the texts in question. I challenge you to do so if you think otherwise. What usually happens when I make these challenges is that the person moves on to another line of discourse. That is the problem with the atheist worldview. It never addresses the central issues. It always skirts them with much bravado.
Ok let's assume for a moment that there are accurate prophecies in the bible and that they are "audience specific" (which technically has nothing to do with their accuracy the thing either comes true or it doesn't)
Now if we accept these propositions then logically all we know is that the bible has some accurate prophecy (which is I guess only accurate for a specific audience) it still doesn't tell us the source of this prophecy.
What about this scenario qualifies as evidence for any god(s)? Many religions have prophecy and the theologians of these religions will be happy to explain to you how these prophecies are fulfilled. Are you prepared to read every one of those texts and prove them wrong or do you simply dismiss them as undeminstrable? How is your claim in any way different?
I'm asking how you will believe God if you don't believe He exists.
And I am asking why I should believe in anything that has not been demonstrated?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Invincible ignorance is an invention of the Catholic church but let's consider it for a moment. What reasonable due diligence could possibly be applied to something that exists outside of physical reality? How could you ever confirm or deny such a thing? Also please give a specific example of my miscategirizing one of your logical fallacies with an explanation of the fallacy.
Created:
Posted in:
@buddamoose @thedredpriateroberts @kindertina @earth
One things for sure. If ireena was captured this fool wouldn't know any different.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
You can not say nothing can have ever come into being without a cause of you are willing to commit a black swan fallacy. You can only say that nothing can be eternal if you are willing to commit a black swan fallacy. Please familiarize yourself with the more common logical fallacies before we continue.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Plisken
You may not know what I mean when I use the word reject in reference to a claim. It is not the elimination of the possibility that the claim could be true it is merely the admission that the claim is not proven. It is possible to simultaneously reject the claim that the ball must be red and to reject the claim that the ball cannot be red but it is impossible to accept both claims simultaneously. If there is a word other than reject you would prefer to use for this concept we can discuss it but the concept is what is under discussion no matter what we call it. Perhaps you could just say that you do not accept a claim if that makes you more comfortable?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Plisken
By making the positive claim that the ball is red one is ruling out all other possibilities by default.
Let's look at a few other examples.
If I made the positive claim that the moon is made of cheese I am ruling out the possibility that it is made of rock.
If I made the positive claim that the Empire State Building is 10' tall I am ruling out the possibility that it is over 1000' tall.
If I claim the earth is flat I am ruling out the possibility that it is a rough spheroid.
So if I make the positive claim that the ball is red I have by default ruled put the possibility that it is green or yellow or purple or any other color or combination of colors.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
The truth doesn't change depending on what I think is most reasonable and I have no way of knowing the truth of the matter. To claim one hypothesis over the other with no evidence is intellectually dishonest. The only option open to me is to reject EVERY claim if direct knowledge unless it can be demonstrated. In the past people did not know what caused lightning but they were sure it had a cause so they imagined powerful beings that there lightning down from the sky. No doubt they felt this explanation was far more reasonable than that it just came from nowhere. You and I now know that it is caused by a disparity and subsequent equalization of positive and negative charge. As reasonable as it must have seemed in the bronze age the idea of Thor or Zeus now seems silly.
You have never presented me with any evidence that the universe was created by something that exists outside of physical reality but you did share an article by Stephen Hawking which suggests a plausible explanation of how it could simply exist on its own by natural processes rather like lightning. Now technically this is an appeal to authority but with two claims on the table and with Hawking relying on evidence to reach his conclusion and you relying on the feeling that it has to come from somewhere therefore a creator (which sounds like what was once claimed about lightning) I have to say that your hypothesis does not seem more reasonable to me.
The right answer is... say it with me... I don't know. And until we do (if that ever happens) I reject your claim and indeed all claims that cannot be demonstrated.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Plisken
That is the hypothetical claim being made it is the entire example
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Plisken
If you do not rule out any options then you reject the claim that red is the only option.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Plisken
If red is not the only option then you reject the claim. Is the ball red?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Plisken
You cannot both accept and reject the claim. The claim is that red is the only color the ball could be. If you think the ball could be green for example then you reject the claim by default.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Not too long ago you were trying to tell me that the universe didn't have a beginning
This was never my claim. My claim is that your claim cannot be demonstrated so there is no reason I should accept it over any other explanation. Maybe the universe had no beginning or maybe some outside force sparked or or perhaps it just started without any cause or maybe anything but we don't what exactly and I am unwilling to accept any claim including yours until it is demonstrated. Have you really not understood that this entire time? I don't accept that the universe has no beginning and I don't accept that something exists outside the universe but I also do not accept that the universe began and that nothing could exist outside the universe. I am a skeptic. Prove your claim or I remain skeptical. I reject your claim but accept that I do not know the answer.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Plisken
If you think it is possible that the ball is any other color then you reject the claim. The claim is that the ball MUST be red.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Plisken
Then you have rejected the claim that the ball must be red and cannot be any other color by default.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
There is nothing in the world that observably exists eternally. There is no evidence of either proposition why should I accept one over the other. Far more reasonable to reject both until more information comes to light.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Plisken
No to what? You do not accept that the ball must be red?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Plisken
In the hypothetical I have ruled out every possibility for the contents of the box except for a red ball. All other possibilities are impossible. Do you reject the idea that all other possibilities are impossible or do you accept this?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Plisken
Sorry I think I put that poorly the claim is that the ball is red. Is it reasonable to reject this claim even if I claim truest faith that the ball is red and you cannot prove otherwise.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Plisken
And do you need a reason beyond a lack of evidence to justify rejecting said claim?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Plisken
Is this equally true of all undemonstrated claims.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Plisken
Well the point of this thread is to address that very question so while you are under no obligation to participate if you are not prepared to think about that question then you are not participating by default l. The red ball is in your court.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Plisken
Do you think it is reasonable to believe something you have no evidence for?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
No Mopac I am not making a claim at all. I am saying I don't know. What about the words I don't know makes you so uncomfortable? Why do you have to make an argument from ignorance?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Plisken
Might I propose something? Is it possible that you don't reject the claim that the ball is red because you don't care but rather because there is no evidence to suggest that there even is a ball let alone a red ball?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
You cannot win. I'm sorry if that is difficult for you to accept but it is true.
Created: