|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Subjective Evidence of Gods | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluescat48 Member (Idle past 4190 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: |
And just who is the factory owner?
There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002 Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969 Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 1.9 |
IamJoseph writes: With regard to our thoughts after we pass away, it will be cruel to have humans retain their memories of this realm, while being sent to another totally different one: it serves no purpose. It is more plausible we go back where we came from, rather than to another place. We won't need our bodies or minds because we originally never had one and won't need them where we came from: can a sperm or egg cell contain bodies?A wise man said, 'When we die, all our thoughts die with us' [King Solomon]. Just for the record IaJ. I don't believe that it is about going some place else. Read the last couple of chapters of Isaiah on the New Heavens and New Earth. It is about a recreation of our present world. Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3668 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
"It is about a recreation of our present world".
Yes, I sit corrected - its called going forth and correcting the incompleted world. Otherwise this entire universe won't have any purpose, contradicting the premise the universe was created in wisdom. The purpose is unknown, awaiting the advent of a Messiah to reveal this purpose. For Christianity this has already happened, yet many are still in confusion of it. But ultimately we have to return and say job done, no? Its a big task, and I believe it is one of an accumulative process of all humanity's deeds and asset knowledge - this is also how science works.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 1.9 |
Hi IaJ
We have an agreement. Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3668 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
And just who is the factory owner?
The owner of the factory is the factory owner. The rest are appointed foreman, managers and distribution agents appointed in different positions, as in the law of delegation. I say, why not deal with the owner directly - its much cheaper that way and you get an unadultrated product.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3668 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
Isaiah was a literary genius, his words were so powerful, his finger pointing at a bad king in Israel got him killed. I believe his writings influenced Shakespeare and a host of other writers, proving the word is the most powerful tool in the universe. Arguably, the universe was created with a word, namely Gd "SAID' let there be light, applies to speech. This is one reason that speech [the word] is said to pre-date the universe blueprint.
Its like building a house: first comes the thought of a house image, then the blueprints. Thereafter the raw material. Another view is that everything was created in an instant as a click action, and each product was changed from potential to actuality in its due time. Then again, some believe it just happened or was always there, which I admit is confounding to my small mind.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 1.9 |
In the beginning - God.....
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Hi Panda.
RAZD writes:
Note that you are wrong. Note that there seems to be an implicit need to reach a decision here on all these concepts, that you somehow MUST choose existence or non-existence. Ah, so there are some supernatural concepts that you are agnostic on? That doesn't sound like a 6.9999 (and why not just say 7 at that point - you're just kidding yourself that you fit in the 6 category - rounding error). Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : addedby our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3668 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
I see the opening 4 words in Genesis as a scientific premise; an incumbent statement of a writing which discusses the origins of the universe and stated in its correct place - at the opening. Whether we agree with it or not, it is an answer, as opposed no answer whatsoever of the most important question of all. It also says the universe is absolutely finite; and every person discussing this issue should place their preamble at top: is their universe finite or infinite.
I know of no counter to creationism. It does not change a damn thing though: 2+2 still equals 4; its just that we don't know what 2 means.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
... Straggler, still struggling with the basic concepts I see.
But RAZ the problem here is that you just don't practice what you preach. You cannot test for Last Thursdayism but you still go round telling creationists that the Earth is "Old....Very old indeed". Once again Straggler misrepresents my position with fake quotes. Let's look at the actual posts from Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1:
Bristlecone Pines Message 2: Minimum age of the earth > 8,000 years based on this data. European Oaks Message 3: Minimum age of the earth > 10,434 years based on this data. German Pines Message 4: Minimum age of the earth > 12,405 years based on this data. Lake Suigetsu Varves Message 5: Minimum age of the earth > 35,930 years based on this data. Annual Layers of Ice Message 6: Minimum age of the earth > 40,000 years based on this data. Ice Cores in Greenland Message 7: Minimum age of the earth = 110,000 years based on this data. Minimum age of the earth > 250,000 years based on this NEW data Ice Cores in Antarctica, Message 8: Minimum age of the earth = 422,776 years based on this data. Minimum age of the earth >740,000 years based on this data. Minimum age of the earth >900,000 years based on this data. The Devil's Hole Message 9: Based on this information alone we can conclude:
Talking Coral Heads Message 10: The age of the earth >400,000,000 years based on this data. Discussion of Radiometric Correlations Message 11: The age of the earth ~4.5 billion years based on this data. The Bottom Line Message 12: For the dating ages that are covered by these methods to be wrong -- "filled with errors" in the lexicon of the creationists -- there must be a mechanism that will cause exactly the same patterns of climatological change in each one, a mechanism that has escaped scientists, a mechanism that would have to mimic diverse complete annual phenomena within a very short period ... Certainly scientists (and people who do not have problems with the results of science) agree that the accumulation of evidence available shows that life on earth is at least 3.5 billion years old and that the earth itself is at least 4.55 billion years old. So what I have been saying is that the data/information/evidence show that the earth is old, much older than any creationist model can account for OR a mechanism needs to be demonstrated that explains all these correlations. Last time I checked, "Last Thursdayism" does supply that mechanism, ... however that does not mean that the evidence then shows that creationism is correct -- "Last Thursdayism" does not support creationism either. Straggler really should pay more attention to the people he debates with, as the falsehood of his misrepresentations are easy to demonstrate. The problem is that he is so pervasive with them, that it's like a Gish gallop to deal with all of them. AND he seems to behave like Hovind, content to believe in his distorted perceptions regardless of evidence contrary to it.
If I put it to you that there is an undetectable killer bogeyman in your bedroom whose actual existence will only manifest itself by killing you then it is a fact that you are just as dismissively atheistic towards this entity as I am. Not because you have tested it. You can't test for it (except by being killed). But because you know as well as I do that baselessly conceived unfalsifiable entities such as this one are all but certainly human fictions. Sigh. I've already dealt with this type of concept with bluegenes, who also imagined a scenario involving my imminent death, and I see no reason to change my answer for Straggler. What happens will happen whether I believe the concept or not. There are in fact a number of discrete medical conditions that can cause my imminent death, whether inflicted by some unknown generic demon or not. I am not atheistic about a single one of them, but neither do I cower in fear of them. If I die by some supernatural hand, then I will know the truth, but Straggler will still be ignorant -- and all the doctors will ascribe some natural cause to my death - heart attack (due to medication), stroke (due to blood clots caused by medication), or due to "complications arising from the long battle with cancer" (the usual suspects etc etc etc). This is what xongsmith has said as well.
... baselessly conceived unfalsifiable entities such as this one are all but certainly human fictions. Straggler, bluegenes, etc et al, seem to have this curious blind spot in their logical makeup, that somehow a known fiction proves that any other concept they can't explain must be a fiction as well. It's the "god-did-it" explanation for these pseudoscience atheists. This is a logical fallacy of the first order, and demonstrates a heavily biased view. Making up "evidence" does not show that your hypothesis is valid. Making up fictional characters only proves that the fictional characters are made up, not that anything else is. Fictional cowboy stories do not prove that all cowboys are fictional characters. This is, however, how pseudoscience is done.
You can call it an "opinion" but unless you move out of your bedroom just in case your actions speak louder than words. ... As I said to bluegenes, I would gladly confront such a situation, as this would be evidence that supernatural entities\forces do in fact exist, and whether or not I could communicate that result to anyone else, it would satisfy me to know the truth rather than shrink from it in ignorant fear. So no, Straggler's ludicrous mis-characterization of my behavior based on my beliefs is (once again) wrong. Once again we see that whatever Straggler says about RAZD is more likely wrong than right.
It's not pseudoskeptical to conclude such entities are human inventions. Of course not, as that is not why Straggler (or blueggenes) is a pseudoskeptic.http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Pseudoskepticism quote: Straggler is a pseudoskeptic because the definitions above fit him to a "T" ... the closemindedness and the continued inability to support his position with objective empirical evidence that makes him a pseudoskeptic. And as far as available evidence goes, the fact that Straggler (a) presents this concept while ostensibly remaining an atheist is evidence thathe did not have a supernatural experience that informed him of this being, (b) he do not provide any other source for knowing about it and (c) there is no other known information\documentation regarding this particular concept that I am aware of, so (d) I can logically conclude (form my opinion) that Straggler most likely made this one concept up. This is what logic and the available evidence shows in this one specific case. It is not enough to prove that it is made up, but it is sufficient for me to form my tentative opinion regarding this concept. Similar logic and evidence applies to the IPU and to other similar concepts promoted by non-believers (where a and b apply). Similar logic and evidence does NOT apply to many religious concepts which are promoted by believers (because, curiously, a, b and c do not apply). The failure to see\understand this rather basic and fundamental distinction here is also why Straggler and bluegenes are pseudoskeptics doing pretend pseudoscience rather than science. I base my worldview on my experiences, education, evidence, beliefs and logic, and I base my opinions on my worldview and the pertinent available evidence. Bluegenes admits to making up his bogus characterizations, but somehow does not realize that they prove nothing other than that he can make up fictional characters.
Your problem lies in taking this evidence and applying it to the things that you subjectively believe in. And that would be because the logic and available evidence are not the same, as shown above. Straggler's problem, consistently, is not understanding what he thinks my positions are, or why his logic is so wrong in so many ways. Enjoy.by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nlerd Member (Idle past 3604 days) Posts: 48 From: Minnesota Joined:
|
Straggler writes: 1) What subjective evidence in favour of the existence of gods is there? Can someone provide some actual examples of this form of evidence? Jesus appearing in my soup?
Straggler writes: 2) Is subjective evidence limited to entities that can be empirically detected or not? Subjective evidence is limited only to the imagination.
Straggler writes: On what basis (aside from belief) is the cause of these subjective experiences attributed to supernatural entities... I don't think subjective evidence is only attributed to the supernatural, if I tell someone that I was chased through the woods by a orangutan with pink dyed fur and no one was there to verify that it happened that'd be subjective evidence.
Straggler writes: 4) Is belief itself a form of evidence on which we can justify belief? Not at all, I'm pretty sure now that I think about it I only BELIEVED that was a pink orangutan at the time. I'm pretty sure it was actually cousin Bob in last years Halloween costume. Here is a question for you though. If the only evidence that something exists IS subjective does that mean that it DOESN'T exist? What if say a group of researcher discovers a fairy that appears every 10,000 years in the sewers of Detroit and grants 8 wishes to the first person who talks to it, but the researchers die on the way out of the sewers due to a flash flood. It actually did happen but there is no record of it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
RAZ writes: Straggler's problem, consistently, is not understanding what he thinks my positions are... Your position is all over the place. One minute you are confidently telling people that the Earth is billions of years old and the next you are demanding complete agnosticism to anything that remains untested (e.g. Last Thursdayism). Why not clear this up once and for all by answering the following two questions honestly and explicitly: 1) Is the Earth billions of years old or only a few days old?2) Is your answer to the above a mere opinion or an evidenced fact? RAZ writes: So what I have been saying is that the data/information/evidence show that the earth is old... Strangely what I have been saying is that the data/information/evidence show that god concepts are products of the human proclivity to invent such things.
RAZ on the undetectable killer bogey man writes: What happens will happen whether I believe the concept or not. So you are not taking an atheistic position with regard to the undetectable killer bogey man in your bedroom. You have not confidently concluded that this concept is a human fiction rather than a real entity. You are instead taking a "cest la vie" approach to being butchered in your bed. RAZ this is not a credible position.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
nlerd writes: Jesus appearing in my soup? Are soup manifestaions a reliable method determining what does and does not exist?
nlerd writes: Subjective evidence is limited only to the imagination. Which is exactly why applying the term "evidence" creates a misnomer.
nlerd writes: If the only evidence that something exists IS subjective does that mean that it DOESN'T exist? Of course not. But if that which is being described as "evidence" is functionally equivalent to imagination then the likelihood of that evidence leading to correct conclusions is no different to plucking conclusions out of one's arse. And I would suggest that will result in conclusions that are more likely to be wrong than right.
GDR writes: What if say a group of researcher discovers a fairy that appears every 10,000 years in the sewers of Detroit and grants 8 wishes to the first person who talks to it, but the researchers die on the way out of the sewers due to a flash flood. It actually did happen but there is no record of it. Whether this is true or false it would be irrational for anyone to believe it to be true based on the above alone wouldn't it?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 285 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Are soup manifestaions a reliable method determining what does and does not exist?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
GDR writes: So when you say that a case can be made for things like "objective mathematical truths" or even conceivably "some aspect of zero sum based morality" that exist apart from our physical brains, then by extension I think I have demonstrated that the same likelihood applies to theism. So this thing you call "god" you think exists in the same sort of abstract Platonic sense that a perfect circle or the number pi can be said to objectively exist?
GDR writes: In your post you acknowledge that there is a basis for acknowledging the possibility of mathematical and even moral truths that exist in some sense apart from physical brains. In a Platonic sense - Yes. And be clear here that non-zero sum morality is a result of the maths rather than something in and of itself. In this little conjecture of ours morality is essentially just an inevitable by-product of maths. Nothing more.
GDR writes: It would seem to make sense that as the mathematical truths are necessary for the existence of the universe this intelligence must have pre-dated the material universe. What intelligence? If my conjecture is correct then intelligence itself would be a result of the blind mindless logic from which all else follows.
GDR writes: At this point based on the assumption that we made, all we can know of this intelligence is that it is highly intelligent, it is highly creative and it has a sense of morality. What intelligence? All we started with was blind mindless logic. You have added intelligence, creativity and a sense of morality. In effect you have anthropomorphicised the idea in a way that is utterly typical of humans displaying the psychological proclivity to invoke false positive agency at every opportunity in exactly the way we have been discussing. Your inability to consider any question without inserting a human-like intelligent agent into it is kinda proving my psychological point isn't it?
GDR writes: So when you say that a case can be made for things like "objective mathematical truths" or even conceivably "some aspect of zero sum based morality" that exist apart from our physical brains, then by extension I think I have demonstrated that the same likelihood applies to theism. What you have done here is what you have done throughout this thread. What you have done is show that if you assume that your notion of god exists then you can explain everything in that paradigm and create a huge wheel of circular reasoning. If you assume god exists as part of the premise then you will inevitably conclude that god exists. And - before you say it - No I haven't assumed that god doesn't exist. I have assumed nothing but some form of Platonic mathematical abstract existence that can meaningfully be called "objective". From this you can conceivably derive non-zero sum morality. But some supreme, creative intelligence with a sense of morality of it's own is entirely your own addition.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024