Total posts: 7,093
Posted in:
-->
@Plisken
Why not? If I have total faith shouldn't you believe me?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Plisken
As your interlocutor my respect for you and my respect of any argument you make is necessarily unconnected.
Now do you believe that the ball is red?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Plisken
Then I'm curious what you meant by calling me a liar but if you now assert that I expressed no beliefs this far then we can continue. Or you are free not to continue but this thread is concerning a hypothetical situation so I would appreciate we at least take a look at the hypothetical before moving on to other arguments. If you start a thread about some other concern you have with whatever view you imagine I have then I may participate in that but this thread is concerning a specific question which I believe this thought experiment illustrates.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Plisken
Secularmerlin:What are you talking about? I wasn't expressing a belief.
Plisken:You expressed at least two or lied.
Does this not constitute a claim that I expressed two beliefs? Which two beliefs did I express? When and where? Please be as specific as possible or withdraw your claim. Or as an alternative if you cannot own up to your own words simply do not reply. There is no need to continue if you will not even address your own words.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Plisken
I think that I was not attempting to express any beliefs. You are the one who has made that claim. If you cannot identify the beliefs I was expressing then I will have no choice but to reject your claim.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bsh1
I have no objection although my original intention (to illustrate whether rejecting a claim requires a burden of proof) seemed to belong in the debate art forum since it helps to explain how to have a reasonable discussion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
The testimonies of the gospel writers and NT writers is credible from an internal and external standpoint.
This is a claim not evidence of any claim. I am unable to accept this claim sans sufficient evidence.
These gospel writers speak of events that actually happened.
This is a claim not evidence of any claim. I am unable to accept this claim sans sufficient evidence.
They speak of prophecies that come to pass in their lifetime. They testify to the most significantly important events in the history of the world. So, their level of credibility is different from these other sources.
This is a claim not evidence of any claim. I am unable to accept this claim sans sufficient evidence.
Please lay down the evidence from history from these other accounts, like the flying spaghetti monster.
There is no sufficient evidence for these propositions that is the entire point.
The evidence is outstanding regarding the biblical accounts
Ok then present it.
The Bible is evidence and it contains evidence that what is said is true.
The bible makes claims. That some one wrote a book does not make the contents of that book true.
Prophecy or predictions are reasonable to believe as happening before the events took place, in both testaments.
This is a claim not evidence of any... You know what, I think you get it.
The prophecies in the bible fall primarily into two categories. One is prophecy that was predicted in the bible and fulfilled in the same book. I can make prophecy after the fact too. The second is vague prophecy with open ended time frames. Given a long enough time frame even very unlikely events become virtually assured and many of these so called predictions hardly describe unlikely events (for example there are always wars and rumors of wars so that is a not so much a prediction as an understanding of the violent nature of human beings). Neither of these categories is particularly impressive as prophecy goes. Rather like a horoscope.
You are of course under no special obligation to provide evidence of your position but in that case don't be surprised when I dismiss your claim.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
I think we should just agree to disagree. Clearly you cannot demonstrate your claims or even feel the need to. Just as clearly I am not willing to accept these claims without any sufficient evidence and can't even get you to understand why a prescriptive definition is insufficient. Good day to you sir.
Created:
Posted in:
@castin @Keithprosper
You can open this box when you pry it from my cold dead fingers! Lol
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Let's talk about that shall we. You see language evolves over time and so prescriptive definitions also evolve. As a ready example when I was growing up ain't was not considered a "real" word but through time and popular usage it became recognized as one. This is its definition.
contraction
unpunctuated: aint
- am not; are not; is not."if it ain't broke, don't fix it"
- has not; have not."they ain't got nothing to say"
And again (not to sound like a broken record but) we are not arguing about wether reality exists or even what thay reality should be called. Call it god (capitalize or not) if you like but that does not give you fiat to make claims about that reality without demonstrating those claims. That you have a prescriptive definition in mind is completely besides the point if it is not also descriptive.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Plisken
I need you to tell me what beliefs you think that I was expressing since I was not attempting to express any beliefs. We cannot discuss the matter unless you are more specific. Of course you are under no obligation to provide these details but understand that in that case this conversation is not likely to be very fruitful.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
Drop mass healing word then. I couldn't really decide on that one anyway.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Plisken
What are you talking about? I wasn't expressing a belief.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Buddamoose
(If we come across a curse that might change.)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Buddamoose
(Remove curse is too situational. I'd rather be able to give everybody's slight health bump.)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Plisken
The word perhaps does not constitute a definite statement. It implies a duality at least. For every perhaps there is a perhaps not. Until you participate, which may not happen at all, then we cannot say one way or the other. That is expressly what the word perhaps means.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
Sorry mass healing word not remove curse. I guess I'm not as decisive as Eikka.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
Bless, healing word, guided bolt, prayer if healing, spirit weapon, prayer of healing, beacon of hope, revivify, remove curse.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Plisken
Which second sentence? The one that begins Perhaps? Perhaps does not imply a definite conclusion. In fact if you choose not to participate we may never know.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
This statement only holds water if you correlate morality directly with harm and wellbeing. I am willing to accept that standard but it is not a standard that everyone agrees to which is the definition of subjective.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
That you have a prescriptive definition is the problem. If I define a ball as a round object that is descriptive if I define it as a round object that must be red though it may appear to be another color that is prescriptive. I know you don't understand and I'm trying to help but a prescriptive definition is hypothetical and a descriptive definition is observational. Take gravity, that is the force that causes masses to attract. That is descriptive and it is based on real world observations.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Plisken
That you assume rather than demonstrate is exactly what my example is designed to show as problematic. Perhaps you would understand that if you had participate rather than just dropping by to talk about your personal red ball (god).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Plisken
I'm not sure what you mean. Either the truth is important or it is not. If truth is important then it is equally important to believe in as many true things as possible and to believe in as few false things as possible. If on the other hand truth is unimportant then I'm not sure why it would matter what you believe at all. You claimed that one should honestly seek truth. If you really believe that I refer you to the third sentence of this post.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Plisken
Since you don't seem to mind believing falsehoods I'm not sure how much trust can be put in your conclusions.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Plisken
That sounds counter productive to my stated goal.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Plisken
Well it is important to me that I believe as many true things as possible and as few false things as possible and to that end I reject any undemonstrated claim.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Buddamoose
The best response I have yet to receive on this thread.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Plisken
honestly try to seek the truth.
Is it important to you that you believe as few false things as possible?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Plisken
I'm not sure how to put a fictional character in a real box. I'm not sure why it would matter if a fictional character were put in a fictional box.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Plisken
I have never been presented with sufficient evidence for the idea that any god(s) exist. You are welcome to present any evidence you have but honestly that is not th e only kind of claim that this thread is meant to address. Any claim that cannot be demonstrated could be referred to as a red ball statement.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Plisken
I'm not sure how to put a fictional character in a real box.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
No Mopac rejecting your claims about your god is not the same as rejecting reality. Your definition is prescriptive not descriptive.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
No sir you are expecting a miracle. Reasonable expectation from past experience leads me to expect that you will continue to be completely unable to demonstrate any reality beyond observable reality while simultaneously asserting that you understand the universe better than cosmologists who have spent their entire lives studying the subject. Also this is not the first time that I have had to remind you thay we are not arguing about wether reality exists we are arguing about what that reality entails. We cannot see past the observable universe in the same way we cannot see past the sides of a closed box and so you cannot say if there is a ball there let alone if it is red.
Just to be clear depending on what you would consider a miracle and your ability (or more likely inability) to demonstrate that what you call god was its cause a miracle may be unlikely to convince me either.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Plisken
I require a burden of proof before I will accept a claim and I view this as very reasonable.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Plisken
I didn't make up that "rule" it is a basic tenet of intellectual debate. You can claim anything you want and you are of course under no obligation to provide evidence of any kind but in that case don't be surprised when your claim is rejected as unsubstantiated.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
I mean what I say. It is unchanging, is not effected by anything. It does not decay. It is eternal.Incorruptible. Perfect. Pure.And what that really means in the context of physics is that it cannot be acted against. It is unmovable. If all the matter in the universe exploded, it would remain unperturbed.Yet, everything that moves is the direct result of its omnipotence, which literally meansAll...that is omniAndForce, power, influence.. that is potent.
That us a hell of a red ball. Of course the entire observable universe is the bix and I seem to be having trouble getting the lid off.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Plisken
That is a claim. Claims require a burden of proof.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
What do you.mean by incorruptible exactly? In the context it seems like a qualified statement not a quantifiable fact.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Logical-Master
Saying that the ball is not red constitutes a counter claim merely rejecting the premise that the ball is red does not. Clearly They are two different situations.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Plisken
Ok well have a nice day then thanks for dropping by.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Plisken
Ok well have a nice day then thanks for dropping by.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Plisken
This is actually an exercise to illustrate whether rejecting a claim requires a burden of proof. So how about it do you believe that the ball is red?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Plisken
This is a hypothetical thought experiment. Would you like to participate or were you just saying hi?
Created: