God says this, and God says that

quote:

---

Originally posted by gene90:
Really? John claims that his position is based upon evidence.

---

Yes gene, you know the stuff that you smell and touch and taste and hear and see? That stuff? Maybe you aren't familiar with it?

quote:

---

So you're once again claiming that you have positive evidence that there is no God?

---

And this is where you venture once again deep into fantasy.Lego. Think of Lego. I walk up to my little Lego set and start building with what is there. Some kid comes up to me and starts asking me why I don't build with blocks you can't see or touch and that have no discernable effect on any of the other blocks that I can see. What do you say to this kid? "Shut-up. That's stupid." But until you disprove the invisible blocks you can't discount them either. Then the kid exclaims triumphantly, "Since you are building with the blocks you can see you must be claiming to have positive evidence against the invisible blocks which is contradictory because you don't have evidence against blocks which you can't see or touch so you are assuming that the blocks don't exist so building with the blocks you can see is faith-based too." And the kid sticks out his tongue and scrunches his nose. You BELIEVE this kid is reasonable? Rational? Sensible? Not freaking thoroughly insane?

quote:

---

Agnostics, by definition (two of which I have provided above) do not claim to have evidence either way.

---

Do you know the difference between 'evidence against' and 'no evidence for'? You seem to have no grasp of this distinction.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by gene90:
Then, I suppose you have found a way to use the material world to give you insider knowledge of the supernatural world?

---

Supernatural world? Oh yes, that is that extra-physical universe that your ilk made up and which you insist I disprove.

quote:

---

Perhaps you can clear up how an agnostic that claims to have evidence regarding the existance or non-existance of God is not an internal contradiction?

---

Perhaps you could explain why you have such a hard time resisting the urge to claim I have said things I haven't?

quote:

---

My advice would be that you leave the kid alone because you have no evidence against the 'blocks' he uses and there is no way for you to prove him wrong.

---

So, in short, you do believe it is reasonable. LOL......

quote:

---

Therefore, if you were to engage in a debate with this kid it would turn into a shouting match because neither can prove the other wrong. Either is running on faith.

---

But one can point to stuff, the other can point to nothing at all.

quote:

---

It's a bad analogy because we all have experience with Lego blocks because they are a part of our natural, everyday world. Hypothetical God(s) are not.

---

Of course you need to think so, otherwise the foolishness of what you maintain would come crashing down and sufocate you.It isn't a bad analogy. It is dead-on. Blocks == perceptual data. (The invisible blocks that have no descernable effect on the other blocks, as you have gone to great lengths to point out) == (God or trancendental entities.) The kid building with the tangible blocks would be me and the other kid would be you.

quote:

---

God is more elusive and is not necessarily manifest in our physical world in any obvious way, you have to go looking. That does not necessarily mean that God is not there.

---

Doesn't really matter to the analogy.

quote:

---

A real agnostic would admit that he doesn't know if there is a God or there isn't.

---

LOL..... What else can I do but start to laugh at this hard-headed repetition?

quote:

---

You're just like the crowd in the art museum in my earlier analogy. You don't know if the box is really empty any more than anybody else, because if you tried to open it security would escort you out. You're just running on faith like the rest of us, no matter how much you want to look superior to us "stupid" Christians.

---

I don't base my life around what I think is inside that box. I don't argue based upon what I think is inside that box. I don't pretend to know what is inside that box. Christians, and you, do all of these things. You may claim that I don't know. Fine. Never claimed differently. I can argue and investigate and work around that box, without having to know what is in it. You pretend to know. That is the absurd part. You do claim to know. Its funny, really. And claim that that basing a life around pretending to know what is in the box is reasonable.

quote:

---

I've made that distinction, because you seem to be struggling to turn "no evidence for" into "evidence against".

---

Actually, dear gene, you are the one desperately trying to make this connection.

quote:

---

That's why you called the kid in your analogy "insane", just as you called my beliefs "insane".

---

It was a question.

quote:

---

Basically, it seems that if you cannot collect direct observations of something, it doesn't exist?

---

No. This is Gene's Logic Fantasy World again. Or, if you prefer, the Misrepresent John Workshop. It doesn't matter if it exists or not, you can't use it, you can't do anything with it if there is no evidence for it.

quote:

---

What happens when I put my money in a bank? When it's in the vault and you're locked outside you can't "smell", "touch", "taste", "hear", or "see" it. Does that mean it ceased to exist?

---

Talk about bad analogies. Maybe you should be asking if that money exists even though you never had it and thus never deposited it in a bank that has no known connection to the sensory would in which we live? And then ask yourself if it is reasonable to base your life around the assumption that it does, or if it is more reasonable to live as if the money you never had isn't in a bank that you can't see and does not show up on intangible bank statements that never arrive in an ethereal mailbox from which you cannot retrieve the mail anyway?------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

{Duplicate of previous message - content deleted - Adminnemooseus}[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 12-14-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by gene90:
Of course it does. Legos are a part of our naturalistic world. We're quite familiar with them. My problem with your analogy is that you've tried to make belief in God analagous to something that, on the surface, seems ridiculous.

---

Because it is analogous to something which is ridiculous. Your critique of the analogy, twice now, has involved claiming that Legos are physical objects unlike God. Of course, that is why I chose them. The Legos represent perceptual reality. What your critique has never touched upon is how the invisible blocks are not analogous to the way you describe God and how the kid advocating the invisible blocks is not like you or like anyone else advocating the belief in a god.

quote:

---

Just as your problem with my analogy is that it makes your assumption that what you cannot detect with your sense does not exist ridiculous.

---

What analogy are you talking about? Because the art gallery analogy makes you look ridiculous, not me, as I explained in my previous post.The money analogy is invalid since it involves only perceptual objects and no untestable objects at all.

quote:

---

Let me ask again. Does not detecting something mean that that something does not exist?

---

No. What it does mean is that the undetectable thing cannot be used as a premise. Using an undetectable thing as a premise is ridiculous, except in the context of testing the premise perhaps.

quote:

---

But you are claiming to know what is inside that box.

---

BS.

quote:

---

Or more to the point, you are claiming to know what is not inside the box.

---

Wrong again. I claim that it is silly to argue based upon what is in the box when one has no way of finding out what is in the box and no way, even, of determining IF there is a box at all.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by joz:
Just a quick one John surely the "box" in this case is the uncertainty principle....

​

I mean thats about the only place it is theoretically impossible to be detected, prime real estate for shy and demure semitic tribal deities I would assume.....

---

Gene's box, I think, is some kind of metaphysical universe in which God resides. Both the box and the contents are undetectable, even to the point that they cannot be infered statistically. I happen to think that any God that actually has an hand in the working of the universe ought to be inferrable via some means. Gene disagree though. He has to disagree. Admitting that God can be inferred means that God can be tested and a testable God can be disproven. He appears to fear that more than I.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by robinrohan:
That, as I see it, is your big problem, John. You don't know how to believe.

---

yeah... I guess... ?????------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by funkmasterfreaky:
We are all very good at figuring out what other peoples problems are, let's try looking at our own.

---

To tell you the truth, I'm not sure if robinrohan was joking or not. It is a very odd thing to say, that I don't know how to believe. Is belief something you can learn like math or auto-mechanic-ing?------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by gene90:
Or that, (if it better describes your position) the Judeo-Christian God isn't in there?

---

hmmmmm..... Where are you getting lost? Why are you not paying attention? Why are you focusing on this childish "well you do it too" argument-- oops, sorry, fallacy? There are perfectly good analogies that have gone unanswered. For example, why don't you explain why that kid advocating invisible blocks is not like you advocating an invisible God?------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by funkmasterfreaky:
Theists are constantly told they have to prove God exists, (in the midst of intellectual slander and accusations of foolishness; these things are commonly directed at theists) while atheist/agnostics for some reason don't have to provide evidence of their faith.

---

Why do you think that the people who make a claim for the existence of a thing are asked to provide evidence? Put it in terms you know. Let's see, opening the front door. You walk to the door, turn the knob and pull. If you want more detail you can start with what you've got and see where that gets you. Pull out a screw driver and take the knob apart. Look around. Take it apart some more. Pull out the springs and the pins. Now, lets apply the principle of "prove other stuff is not responsible" Before believing that springs and levers operate the door, did you prove that mind reading martians aren't remote controlling the door? Did you prove that metaphysical monkeys's aren't playing with the door? Did you prove that the door moved and not the whole world around it? See what I am getting at? I can make up an infinite number of things that you would have to disprove before concluding that the springs and thingies in the door-knob move the latch. I'm sure you'll protest, but that is how it goes.

quote:

---

I can see why he wants you to admit you are arguing from a faith based position, because it levels the playing field.

---

Yes, indeed.

quote:

---

I tend to agree that if you can't prove God does not exist you cannot try and force a theist to prove that he does.

---

Why not? Think about it. If I told you I had a 40 carat diamond, you'd ask me to prove it, yes? And I could do that easily by showing you the diamond. But suppose you set out to disprove that I have the diamond. You frisk me. No diamond. You search my house. No diamond. You search my yard. No diamond. You ask my friends. No diamond. You search the city in which I live. The country. The whole planet. No diamond. So you ask, "where is the diamond?" And I reply, "Its hidden and since you can't disprove it I don't even have to show it to you." All of this with no evidence that the diamond exists at all. But it hasn't been disproven either!!!!! The situation quickly becomes absurd. How long would you look before concluding that there is no diamond? How long before you challenged that man to produce evidence that the diamond exists at all? It is common sense really.

quote:

---

How do you know those blocks aren't there? Obviously the child can see them. Maybe you just can't see them. Can you prove that those blocks aren't there?

---

So you argue that belief in the invisible blocks is reasonable? Would you believe in the invisible blocks?------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by gene90:
If a lack of sensory evidence in favor of God is sufficient for not only an agnostic position, but "justify" an atheistic position and actively oppose religion, how can the atheist use a lack evidence in arguments against Christianity? It is inconsistent.

---

Wait a minute?????If lack of evidence for God is sufficient, how can lack of evidence be used in argument? You've constructed a tautology and called it inconsistent.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by gene90:
Lego blocks are defined as small solid objects children play with. Invisible, untouchable Lego blocks are an internal contridiction.

---

hmmm... I could define "real-things" as solid objects and just as easily get rid of your god. This is a semantic quibble and misdirection as well.

quote:

---

The analogy is a poor one because you are deliberately attempting to form a contradiction that seems, on the surface, ridiculous.

---

The analogy is a poor one because on the surface it seems ridiculous. Well, gene, if it is ridiculous that makes it a good analogy. That you don't like it is not sufficient to make it a false analogy.

quote:

---

But to millions of people God is not ridiculous

---

argumentum ad populum and as such fallacious. [quote]and therefore is better reflected by the box analogy, which you have not covered to my satisfaction/quoteIf it has not been covered to your satisfaction why haven't you responded to my interpretation of your box analogy?

quote:

---

How can you claim to be an agnostic if your beliefs are based on any kind of information?

---

What?

quote:

---

Agnostics, by definition don't claim any information.

---

Where did you get this? Agnostic means "I dunno" it doesn't have to mean there is no information.

quote:

---

This claim of information can be found in #199 and #194.

---

LOL...... The position which is refered to is the position which is made without reference to a GOD, for which there is no evidence and therefore is no reason to include.

quote:

---

If it is "silly" to argue what is in the box, why are you arguing with me now?

---

I'm not arguing about what is in the box! But about the rationality of pretending to know what is in the box and basing one's life around that fantasy.

quote:

---

By the way, I still don't see a problem with the bank analogy.

---

You don't see the difference between holding money in you hands, walking up and depositing it in a bank you can see and touch, and not having any money to not deposit in a bank which you have never seen?

quote:

---

Like the money in the vault, you cannot test God.

---

The money can be tested. I can go look. I can deposit more money or withdraw some money, and watch my balance fluctuate. I can check my balance at any ATM or I can check it online. This isn't direct observation but it is every bit as good as the methods used in science. I have never insisted on direct observation. You introduced that.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by gene90:
John goes out of his way to make his analogies extreme, as if belief in God is as extreme as a pet velociraptor (PE's analogy actually) or a 40 carot diamond.

---

You are going to stack my 40 carat diamond up against your God and conclude that my diamond is too extreme? Your god must be very small.The fact is, gene, that it doesn't matter what you put in place of the diamond. You could use a stick of gum. Apparently you feel you need to avoid the issue. Why is that?

quote:

---

Think these out. Why is a pet velociraptor or a 40 carot diamond so extreme? Because both velociraptors and diamonds are physical, tangible entitities which are testable.

---

Extreme? 40 carat diamonds actually exist. The world record is 186 carats.The fact that these things are testable is irrelevant. It is the claims made about them that is the key element. I chose a physical object to bring the example into the realm of experience.

quote:

---

If velociraptors were still around we would almost certainly know it. And in that case, the pet raptor would not be an extreme example. If we had nanotechnology, and I could have a kitchen countertop appliance produce a 40 carot diamond to my specifications anytime I wanted, then the diamond example would not be such a good analogy for him to use. But we know diamonds are not that common.

---

This is profoundly irrelevant. As I pointed out above, you can use anything in the example and it works. Use a gumball or a comic book, and the analogy works.

quote:

---

We don't know about the existance of God in such a way.

---

So, that God cannot be detected is somehow positive evidence for God? You haven't stated this outright but I am seeing hints of this concept.

quote:

---

God is like the money in the vault

---

So you held God in your hand, then walked up to the teller and deposited Him in heaven? Really, this is the worst you've presented. As I reformulated it, though, it is quite adequate but you haven't addressed that.

quote:

---

and the piece of art in the box, His existance or non-existance cannot be examined like either of the above.

---

By Jove!!!! You are claiming this as positive evidence.

quote:

---

The only really valid analogy he has produced is the Lego analogy, and even then he went out of his way to make it rather strange.

---

I went out of my way to make it track with the claims for the existence of God. That is why it is rather strange. Glad you have finally admitted it.

quote:

---

The fact of the matter is, that as Sagan said, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".

---

Of course not, but nor is it evidence FOR. My beaf is that it is ridiculous to build arguments or beliefs based upon something for which there is no evidence. IGNORING the thing for which there is no evidence is not the same as proving it wrong or asserting the it doesn't exist. You seem to have a real mental block here.

quote:

---

You cannot go around assuming that something does not exist simply because it cannot be tested.

---

But you can go around pointing out that it is unreasonable to argue with something untestable as your premise. This is my point.

quote:

---

Radio waves and black holes are excellent real-word analogies, and they are discussed in science, no less.

---

What? Radio waves and black holes can't be tested? And no evidence, prior to their actually being discovered, lead to the conclusions that they exist?------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by funkmasterfreaky:
But if I walk up to the door, knock, and it's opened up for me, I do not even have to touch the door knob. I can enter in and never even have had to worry about the mechanics of a latch.

---

Why is that relevant, funk?

quote:

---

Evidence of God has to be evidence of the spiritual affecting the physical, making some sort of impact of the physical.

---

So, in short, there is no evidence for God. Again, why believe?

quote:

---

Why would a kid make a claim to blocks that he knew did not exist?

---

Why did David Koresh claim to be Jesus? Why did Charles Manson believe he needed to start a race war? Why does the dalai lama believe he is the reincarnation of his predecessor? Belief and assertion are not indicators of truth.

quote:

---

Why would s/he hold to said claim under scrutiny?

---

You and gene are in a much better position to answer that than I.

quote:

---

There must be some reason for the claim.

---

This doesn't follow. There does not have to be a reason. I have a teenager in the house who makes stuff up for no good reason. He doesn't even know why he does it. There is verifiable mental disorders that could account for it. And most people simply believe what they are told as kids. But lets not forget the age-old staples-- power and money. Religion has an enormous amount of both.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by schrafinator:
Gene, you misrepresented what John wrote about in this article.

---

Thank you, schraf.At least gene has been man enough to drop the subject, without admitting the error.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by gene90:
Look, John is mad because Congress ignored a suggestion to legalize pedophilia. He wrote about it. Therefore he is encouraging pedophilia. The title of the article is, "Emancipation proclamation for pedophiles".

---

Have you no shame? Every point you made has been addressed, yet you repeat the same garbage yet again.1) There was no suggestion to legalize pedophilia. You can't get even this much straight.2) There was a legitimate study indicating that the effects are not as traumatic as most imagine. Congress, based on nothing but knee-jerk emotion and public opinion posturing, condemned a LEGITIMATE STUDY. Hello, gene, this is censorship of information!!!!!!3) Wow. I wrote about it. Well damn me to hell.4) I wrote to discourage censorship not to encourage pedophilia. That you can't see the difference is mind-bending.5) The title of my article is nearly verbatum what the study was labelled by those who opposed it when it first came out a few years ago. The title is a reference to the study. But you knew this, because I have told you.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com[This message has been edited by John, 12-16-2002]