|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: God says this, and God says that | |||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: 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: 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: 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: Supernatural world? Oh yes, that is that extra-physical universe that your ilk made up and which you insist I disprove.
quote: Perhaps you could explain why you have such a hard time resisting the urge to claim I have said things I haven't?
quote: So, in short, you do believe it is reasonable. LOL......
quote: But one can point to stuff, the other can point to nothing at all.
quote: 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: Doesn't really matter to the analogy.
quote: LOL..... What else can I do but start to laugh at this hard-headed repetition?
quote: 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: Actually, dear gene, you are the one desperately trying to make this connection.
quote: It was a question.
quote: 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: 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
{Duplicate of previous message - content deleted - Adminnemooseus}
[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 12-14-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: 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: 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: 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: BS.
quote: 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: yeah... I guess... ????? ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: hmmmmm.....
John writes: 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. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: 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: Yes, indeed.
quote: 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: 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: 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 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: 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/quote If it has not been covered to your satisfaction why haven't you responded to my interpretation of your box analogy?
quote: What?
quote: Where did you get this? Agnostic means "I dunno" it doesn't have to mean there is no information.
quote: 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: 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: 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: 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: By Jove!!!! You are claiming this as positive evidence.
quote: 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: 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: But you can go around pointing out that it is unreasonable to argue with something untestable as your premise. This is my point.
quote: 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: Why is that relevant, funk?
quote: So, in short, there is no evidence for God. Again, why believe?
quote: 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: You and gene are in a much better position to answer that than I.
quote: 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: 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]
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024