You claim that God does not exist.

Discussion in 'Religion & Philosophy' started by Heretic, Mar 26, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Incorporeal

    Incorporeal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2009
    Messages:
    27,731
    Likes Received:
    62
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Correct. The proper use of the term is settled with your statement "Unless it is successfully disproved, it is conclusive." End of argument with regard to the validity of 'belief'.
     
  2. donquixote99

    donquixote99 New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2013
    Messages:
    1,550
    Likes Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    0
    End of THAT argument because I choose not to argue about such things with you.
     
  3. Incorporeal

    Incorporeal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2009
    Messages:
    27,731
    Likes Received:
    62
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Regardless of your reason for 'end of that argument', it is your choice of words that ended the argument and ironically, I concur with that choice of words which you made. Have a good day.
    ""Unless it is successfully disproved, it is conclusive.""
     
  4. GraspingforPeace

    GraspingforPeace Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2008
    Messages:
    14,162
    Likes Received:
    1,403
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yup, which would be a different piece of knowledge than the actual belief itself. It would be actually two separate pieces of knowledge that you'd have to reference. One part of knowledge accepting the existence of said evidence, and another part of knowledge accepting the argument for what the evidence represents.

    And the distinction is that the fossils exist objectively, so I am not simply referencing something in my mind, I am referencing something that objectively exists. Unless you are doubting that the physical world exists.

    Because you said this: "Do you not know that one of the definitions of 'real' is "true"?"

    When my edit says to ignore that part if you're simply talking about them synonymously. And then you went and called me disingenuous for some reason.

    Then why are we speaking at all if you are simply going to not accept what I say as what I actually believe? And you have the gall to call ME disingenuous? You're pretty much TELLING me what my views are, and when I tell you that isn't at all what my views are, you reject my explanation. That's childish.

    Where is that rule laid out? They have the authority to punish trolls, not the sole authority to label someone a troll.

    I never said I didn't think my beliefs weren't true, learn to read Incorporeal.

    "I never said that I didn't consider my beliefs to be true, only that they weren't true because I was holding them."

    "I consider them true based on the evidence I have for them."

    There are other definitions of have including this one: "To possess knowledge of or facility in:"

    What attributes of the evidence are we judging to be true or false?

    Because that is how the word is usually used by people I speak with and usually people who try to claim that I have faith in my beliefs are those that want to put religious beliefs without evidence on the same evidentiary plane as beliefs WITH evidence. Then, when people try to use faith to mean simply some sort of trust based on evidence, it usually ends up becoming a fallacy of equivocation, in my experience. They'll yell, "AHA! See you have faith just like us! (if I end up accepting the definition of faith as being synonymous with trust based on evidence)", which isn't true because the distinction about evidence is an integral part of the argument.

    So, that's why I avoid using that word and I would enjoin you to do so as well.

    Then I'm perplexed as to how you can put no trust in my declarations and not believe that I am lying at the same time.

    That is simply how empiricism works. You use observations about the natural world and the interpretation with a stronger logical argument wins out. Honestly, if you're just trying to make the argument that empiricism requires a few assumptions about the natural world, that's fine, I accept that, but get to the bloody point already. Or are you simply trying to trot into Solipsism?
    - - - Updated - - -

    And how did you determine that information to be false if you didn't use other information as evidence for it to be false?
     
  5. donquixote99

    donquixote99 New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2013
    Messages:
    1,550
    Likes Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I think you're on to something here. And I think he reads your posts.
     
  6. GraspingforPeace

    GraspingforPeace Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2008
    Messages:
    14,162
    Likes Received:
    1,403
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It is starting to look that way, especially when he says things like this: "Declaring that they are not true is denying them their due consideration as a belief," right after I said this: "I never said that I didn't consider my beliefs to be true, only that they weren't true because I was holding them."
     
  7. Incorporeal

    Incorporeal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2009
    Messages:
    27,731
    Likes Received:
    62
    Trophy Points:
    48
    In either case, both are subjective.


    Prove that the object you have subjectively referenced does objectively exist if you are not in possession of the referenced object.


    And your point?

    Because at the time I submitted, your edit was not in place.


    Because you keep responding.

    Yes I do!

    Not "childish" just differing perspective.


    In the TOS of this forum. If THEY have the sole authority to punish trolls, it is only they that can label someone as a troll. Your labeling as such means nothing, as you do not have the authority to 'punish'.

    You better look again.

     
  8. Incorporeal

    Incorporeal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2009
    Messages:
    27,731
    Likes Received:
    62
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Then prove my statements to be wrong.
     
  9. donquixote99

    donquixote99 New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2013
    Messages:
    1,550
    Likes Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    0
    My belief, for me, is prima face evidence.
     
  10. Incorporeal

    Incorporeal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2009
    Messages:
    27,731
    Likes Received:
    62
    Trophy Points:
    48
    That is cool. As for me... I reserve the right to refrain from expressing some of my beliefs... especially regarding some of the people participating on this forum.
     
  11. STRANGEVISITOR72

    STRANGEVISITOR72 New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2013
    Messages:
    659
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    0
  12. Incorporeal

    Incorporeal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2009
    Messages:
    27,731
    Likes Received:
    62
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Are you sure that you are not a reincarnated Jim Jones?
     
  13. GraspingforPeace

    GraspingforPeace Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2008
    Messages:
    14,162
    Likes Received:
    1,403
    Trophy Points:
    113
    But that isn't what circular reasoning is...

    What object? I was being general and talking about a huge class of millions of objects. Anyways, I'm not going to engage in exorbitant and childish demands to prove a certain piece of evidence exists or a certain experiment actually took place. If you accept the scientific method and the peer review process, then all you have to do is rely on Occam's Razor. Hmmm, either millions of scientists are engaging in a world wide conspiracy against the public, OR scientists are actually relying on objective evidence that exists (and experiments that you can repeat given the correct data and equipment). To question every single claim with the same veracity is a fruitless endeavor and you'll end up sliding into solipsism.

    Where was the disingenuous part of my post?

    Seems that you're lying since the edit was in your post where you quoted me.

    Nope, I labelled you as a troll. Seems that you're wrong.

    Not really, you have to ignore the context of the sentence to get to such an interpretation.

    Depends on the belief. I don't have a lifetime to sit and describe the different evidence I have for every single belief I have just because you're a lonely old man.

    So what? Unless you deny the existence of the physical world, then putting out that "everything is subjective" is entirely idiotic. Of course everything is subjective, but not all subjective observations of the world hold the same evidential weight.

    And why is that?

    You mean accepting that absence of evidence is evidence of absence? Well, great, thanks for admitting that you were wrong, then.
     
  14. Yyrlan

    Yyrlan New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2013
    Messages:
    2
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Actually The ones that claim that a deity or 'god' exists has the onus of proving said entity does. Those that do not believe in said entity need not attempt to prove or disprove the alleged beings existence.
     
  15. Incorporeal

    Incorporeal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2009
    Messages:
    27,731
    Likes Received:
    62
    Trophy Points:
    48
    I just love the notion of you jumping in there with the Occams razor thing: "Suppose two explanations are equally likely. In this case the simpler one is usually better. Another way of saying it is that the more assumptions you have to make, the more unlikely an explanation is."

    Therefore, "God did it" is the more simpler one as it does not require all the scientific mumbo jumbo, mathematics, theories, etc.

    Have a good day.



     
  16. GraspingforPeace

    GraspingforPeace Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2008
    Messages:
    14,162
    Likes Received:
    1,403
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Except you're ignoring the numerous other assumptions THAT assumption relies on. Which just goes to show how ignorant you are of these types of arguments. Not to mention that "God did it" doesn't actually explain anything about the process at all.
     
  17. Incorporeal

    Incorporeal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2009
    Messages:
    27,731
    Likes Received:
    62
    Trophy Points:
    48
    What "process" has been mentioned? None? OMGoodness. Now you are admitting that Occams Razor is just an 'assumption'. Wow. Thanks for that admission.
     
  18. GraspingforPeace

    GraspingforPeace Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2008
    Messages:
    14,162
    Likes Received:
    1,403
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Any process you can think of, "God did it" isn't an explanation for the process.

    I was talking about your God assumption.
     
  19. Incorporeal

    Incorporeal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2009
    Messages:
    27,731
    Likes Received:
    62
    Trophy Points:
    48
    What specific process was being spoken of by Occam in his delightful "assumption" (as you call it)?


    Really? Prove that claim. You did not specify what "assumption" you were talking about and we were specifically talking about the effect of Occams Razor.
     
  20. GraspingforPeace

    GraspingforPeace Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2008
    Messages:
    14,162
    Likes Received:
    1,403
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Irrelevant to the discussion, and I never called it an assumption. It's a rule of thumb.

    I'm telling you right now what I meant and what I still mean. Prove I meant anything else.
     
  21. donquixote99

    donquixote99 New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2013
    Messages:
    1,550
    Likes Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    0

    He's jus playin', y'know.
     
  22. Incorporeal

    Incorporeal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2009
    Messages:
    27,731
    Likes Received:
    62
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Glad to see that there is at least one person on this forum with a sense of humor.
     
  23. Stagnant

    Stagnant Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2012
    Messages:
    5,214
    Likes Received:
    45
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You know, there's enough dumb posts here without the stupid hyperbole from the right. Just sayin'.
     
  24. Incorporeal

    Incorporeal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2009
    Messages:
    27,731
    Likes Received:
    62
    Trophy Points:
    48
    If it could be measured in some fashion, I am certain that there is an equal amount coming from both the left and the right.
     
  25. Right Wing

    Right Wing New Member

    Joined:
    May 28, 2013
    Messages:
    989
    Likes Received:
    17
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Even if it will not contribute any edification to the discussion, could you finish your second sentence?
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page