After reading the direction of the current "Great Debate" tread two things are obvious:
--RAZD is being a troll
--This outcome was inevitable. That is why I declined the invitation to participate.
In spite of several whole threads devoted to sophistry, philosophy, artful dodging, obfuscation, hyper-definition, and applied "logic" things are still going around in circles. Or rather, because of ...
The issue is simple: is there evidence for supernatural critters or not?
RAZD is doing his best to avoid that simple question, and in doing so has been running this whole website around in circles.
(The woo is strong in that one!)
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
I see you now have three Great Debate topics running concurrently. All 3 regarding the existence of gods. All 3 relating to the evidence for and against. How strange that "subjective evidence" is the key feature of your position in all 3 of them. Given that you said your argument on subjective evidence had "NOTHING" to do with such entities.
Hi straggler, still struggling to understand or still just refusing to?
Given that you said your argument on subjective evidence had "NOTHING" to do with such entities.
First, note that my position on the value of subjective evidence does not depend on the existence one way or the other of god/s. That has not changed, and is not likely to.
In our discussion/s on the value of subjective evidence I specifically excluded god/s to focus on the universal value of subjective evidence, and thereby forced you to concede that it indeed had some value -- as a possibility that would require further investigation to be confirmed.
How strange that "subjective evidence" is the key feature of your position in all 3 of them.
It is presented in two out of three, as an example of the kinds of arguments other people have made. I am participating in those debates as devil's advocate against their various positions, not in any way in justification of my position or beliefs.
But you should also note that in those cases, all I am saying is that the subjective evidence is just as valid as other subjective evidence, AND that it cannot be used to make conclusions regarding the existence or not of god/s, just as a possibility that would require further investigation to be confirmed - for the pro stance - or that needs to be invalidated for the con stance.
Now, I have been asked to not participate on this thread, so you need to find another way to troll me. Or be civil and try to understand instead of leaping to false concussions.
Does anyone understand the point RAZ is trying to make in Message 111 with the whole furniture maker thing?
I would wager that it is a variant of the blind men and the elephant story to demonstrate that despite some contradictory versions of furniture making, that furniture nonetheless gets made. This one came out of the Hindu Hypothesis arguments. Mutually exclusive versions of the creation of the earth and the sun and mankind do not rule out a Supernatural Being (a Creator in this case). bluegenes does argue that at most 1 of them can be true, but RAZD is arguing they could all be such imperfectly drawn versions of the same thing that on face value each one is false, yet they are all an attempt to describe the same Creator which could be true.
BTW the Declaration of Independence has that beautiful part. "endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights", which applies to me because my Creators were my mom & dad. Actually this statement is even more powerful than that, for the adjective "inalienable" - these right CANNOT be taken away. Off topic....nevermind.
We have seen months and months of RAZD asking bluegenes where is the evidence he promised?
bluegenes may not have realized it, but the best dagger is the supernatural being commonly known as the Lord God of the Old Testament, the god of Adam, Noah, Abraham and Moses. This supernatural being is claimed to have created everything in 6 days. Then he took a nap on the 7th day. He is not the Deist God of RAZD and others. No - this is a specifically different entity. He is not a trunk or tail of some incompletely seen Heffalump.
Scholars throughout history have studied this old testament dude and a huge amount of homo sapiens sapiens still believe the writings therein that these scholars have concluded means the Earth is only some 6000 years old. The YEC people are a vibrant living sector of the current world and have been around for about as long as anyone would care to measure. This YEC God is not a comic book character, not a caricature in the sense that RAZD is talking about.
Who here in EvC has provided the most objective scientific evidence that this YEC God cannot be correct? Who has more completely demolished the YECs that dare venture into this discussion board?
In short, who has most provided bluegenes with the evidence RAZD is asking for?
That certainly is curious. Here's a specific concept. The god who created the world in six days less than 10,000 years ago, and fabricated the first two human beings during that period of creation. As I've pointed out, at least 100,000,000 of your compatriots believe in a god concept fitting this description.
There's overwhelming "objective empirical evidence" that such a creation never took place, and therefore that the "specific concept of a supernatural being" described cannot exist.
As I said, it certainly is curious. There's another guy on this forum who also calls himself "RAZD" and who spends a lot of time on science threads presenting evidence against this particular specific SB -concept.
So how can RAZ continually claim that there is no evidence when (as has been pointed out) he has supplied plenty of evidence himself here at EvC over the years that specific concepts such as the Christian YEC God are human fictions?
Is he just being an arse? Or does he really not see it?
I cannot prove the non-existence of an undefined entity.
Or in other words, you do not have sufficient information to make a logical conclusion one way or the other on whether god/s exist/ed.
The term that is being sought here is ignosticism. You cannot be agnostic towards the existence of something without knowing what it is. Whatever RAZ tries to assert.
RAZD: Do you believe god exists? Unsuspecting Person: Well it depends what you mean by god. RAZD: No. That doesn't matter. Do you believe god exists? Unsuspecting Person: Well um... I don't know. RAZD: Aha! Good answer. Very rational. Well done. You are agnostic. Unsuspecting Person: Am I? RAZD: Yes. Unsuspecting Person: Agnostic towards what? RAZD: I cannot tell you. Unsuspecting Person: Why? RAZD: Because if I tell you then you probably won't be agnostic towards it. Unsuspecting Person: But how do you know if I am agnostic. Don't you want to know my actual opinion on your concept of god? RAZD: Noooooooo. That would kind of ruin my argument. Unsuspecting Person: Oh. That seems kind of misleading. RAZD: Not at all. You have said "I don't know". Thus you are agnostic. That is the answer I wanted. Now move along. Next.
Refusing to define things and then taking the inability to refute a non-concept is NOT an argument in favour of RAZ's agnostic conclusion.
He has tried this rather deceitful approach previously......