secularmerlin

Then many god concepts have negative properties and so can be dismissed. 

Intelligent design and creationism have equal evidence going for them and both include the idea that lifeless matter became living organisms so both are subsets of abiogenesis. The only discussion I think is how the abiogenesis occurred. The truth is we don't know how life began but life itself is not an argument for any god(s) and even less for any specific god.

What is a "specific act of divinity"? Indeed what is "devinity"? Is it not a part of nature should it exist at all?

I'm honestly not sure.

Well there are true things and untrue things and those things which are true do not depend on dome other factor they are simply true. Of course the truth or falsehood of many things are as yet undetermined by humans. We can only say things are true if we have determined them to be true. Otherwise we are by definition making an argument from ignorance. I thought you wpuld like that since it is a tautology.

I am unconcerned with zing. You may state this any way you like.

If some god(s) are a part of nature then your definition needs adjusting.

What is the difference between what is true and ultimate truth? If they are the same thing then I'm not sure what your argumentbhere is.

Is the ultimate truth not what is true?

We did not know. We predicted. It turned out to be true.

Hotels presupposes the notion of positiveand negative properties i believe I have already explained my feelings about presuposition.

Didn't you start this conversation?

Do you know where I might find either sort of person? Do you think they would debate with me?

In any case that has nothing to do with the existence of a being that cannot be quantified through math or logic.

That is exactly how they are known. If we could not confirm mathematical and logical truths in a measurable way how could we know That they were trustworthy?

I'm sorry but are you addressing me?

Can I win with one of those?

Would using that definition weaken my position?

Please explain how some god(s) if any exists would be not be part of nature.

I'm sorry but even if math and logic exist as more than a human invention  they are not concerned with any god(s). How do you obtain information that indicates anything without measuring physical effects?

How many times have I told you that I accept many truths provisionally.

Don't we need a very definite meaning for both life and death before I can say?

Can anyone ever really die who has been a part of my subjective experience? Are they not still with me in that way?

I agree we must make the presupposition. Presupposition is not always useful in determining truth. For example we have no way of knowing that the laws of physics (and therefore the invented mathematical language we reference it with) do not break down before the big bang. So we can accept these laws as universal but we have no way of knowing that they are. Even if they are universal to our local physical (observable) reality.

That's alright if I don't view them as physical objects anyway only as a way of relating. They are as real as any other abstract concept such as love or evil. Both of which may be no more then brain chemistry in action. So long as they yield results who cares if they are real physical objects. If they are useful then they have physically measurable results. If you can use math to build a rocket and launch humans into space then there is a real physical effect. The rate of acceleration necessary to escape earth gravity is constant even without math but with math human beings can relate the idea in a way that is manageable. That fits in the mind. Physical reality is not built on math math is built on physical reality. Same goes for logic. Logic is not the observation it is the evaluation of the observation. That is why it is so important to apply logic as much as possible only to things you have observed.

You are correct again there is no evidence in either direction for the idea of some god(s) though most of the specific god concepts that have been posited to me we have inductive evidence against them in exactly that way.

Someone my dear Achilles must be the tortoise.

I am of a single mind and my standards are my own. They have not shifted since we bagan talking mopac.

Then we agree.

I accept that truth exists other same way that I accept that physical reality is real. Provisionally. 

Then skepticism is the default position.

Forgive me some negatives can be proven let me rephrase. While absence of evidence is not evidence of absence it is certainly not evidence for existence.

I do not identify as a nihilist. Merely a hard skeptic.

You are correct of course. I should be more how I put things.

Belief and knowledge are not the same thing.

Does the fact that I have never, to date, physically died count as such evidence?

I accept that some truth probably exists. Your point is therefore based on a faulty premise and therefore invalid.

I disagree. Since I am the subject under discussion and I therefore am more familiar with the subject than you are so I feel that I canlogically dismiss your claim but thank you for your input.

When did I say that I do not believe in logic or that I am a nihilist? I think you may be mistaking me for another poster. You are correct however that I don't really believe in deism but I find it more rationally plausible than I find the idea that some interactive conciousness exists precisely because if one existed we would logically expect some observable physical evidence of these interactions would be observable and directly testable. If you want to call reality (whatever that turns out to be) god that's fine but reality is not observably conscious and so your god is observably deistic in nature (set up the universe by whatever means followed by an apparent non interventionist policy). To argue more would require that you demonstrate more.

Logically your tautoligical definition (If we even accept it) only supports a belief in deism. 

Why anyone believes is unimportant. When I say there is equal evidence of god(s) and other mythological figures such as Santa clause or big foot it is unconnected with anyone's beliefs and so those beliefs are irrelevant unless accompanied by sufficient evidence. Belief is not evidence in and of itself. That means if you bring it up you are making an argument from authority.

I'm still waiting on your suggested method of testing.

"No god(s) exist" would be a claim and would require a burden of proof. "There is no reason to think that any god(s) exist" is the denial of a claim. In the same way "some god(s) must exist" is a claim while "there is no evidence against god(s)" is merely the denial of a claim.

It is impossible to prove a negative so if no god(s) exist there can be no proof either way. If any god(s) exist we might reasonably expect that some proof would be in evidence. The only sensible position is skepticism of a proposition that we would expect proof of for which none exists.

Skepticism puts the burden of proof on the one making a claim not the one denying said claim. It falls to you as the one claiming there is a transcendent supernatural force/conciousness to demonstrate said conciousness. If I were claiming certainty that such a thing were logically impossible then I too would shoulder a burden of proof but I am only stating that there is no sufficient testable physical evidence to suggest that there is a transcendent supernatural force/conciousness. I asked you in another thread what method you suggest we use in testing for such a thing and you have yet to suggest one.

How would the universe be observably different from our perspective if there were some omnipresent force or being as compared with if there was not? If there is no functional observable.difference then how do.we test for an omnipresence?

Why won't you just tell.me?

Your definition leads to deism at best and deism.does not support the Christian god over any other god concept.

Argument from authority. A common logical fallacy. I am also still waiting on your suggested method of testing for a transcendental object or force.

Skepticism is the default position.

It does not appear that your definition of creationism is incompatible with your definition of abiogenesis.

Was it ever your intention to answer my question?