Moderation Questions
The last iteration of the moderation discussion thread was a complete disaster. Numerous attempts to keep it on topic fa
I'm not a deep philosopher like you, brother. Why don't you just lay your evidence out on the table?
Figuring something out and mindlessly following evidence are incompatible with each other.
Reality is something each person has to figure out.
But as long as people like you keep depending on evidence, you will never figure out reality.
Are you okay with that? Must be!
Can you give me an example of a belief other than that in god that is completely unsupported by all available evidence and, in your view, not stupid? Or is belief in god special in this regard?
The key term in this question is the term evidence. Some people accept abductive/inductive/deductive arguments as evidence, others are just thinking about empirical evidence (based on the senses).
That's not how it works bro. I don't have to prove "not god" any more than I have to prove "not Mystic Meg" or "not teapot". Your argument is the one positively claiming existence of something, you're the one who needs to provide the evidence.
What evidence do you have for "not Santa"? None? So it's just as likely as not that Santa exists then, right? What about "not invisible fairies at the bottom of your garden?". Or "not" anything else I care to dream up?
So then you're saying you don't have any evidence for not god????
Well, if anecdotal evidence counts, I had a dream where the flying spaghetti monster told me that there wasn't one.
That seems about as strong as all the evidence on the pro god side out there.
You must listen to the flying spaghetti monster or you could be filtered by the great colander while the rest of us spend eternity in pastadise.
Figuring something out and mindlessly following evidence are incompatible with each other.
Reality is something each person has to figure out.
But as long as people like you keep depending on evidence, you will never figure out reality.
Are you okay with that? Must be!
So, let me get this right, "reality" is outside of the realm of empirical evidence. Is that about the size of things?
What evidence do you have for not god?
I'm sorry, but I won't be answering any more posts on this subject. I don't like leaving a subject by asking a question, but now that craig is involved I will have to tap out. Don't want to be associated with him.
You will be withholding all of your wisdom???
Devastating..
Well now that we introduced the word proof, do you just mean to ask if there’s a deductive argument that ends in the conclusion “Therefore God exists” that bounds any rational agent to accept it on pain of irrationality? That I’m sure there isn’t.
But do you just mean that there are certain arguments people I consider rational accept for the existence of God? Sure, I like Rob Koons, Alvin Plantinga, Kurt Godel, Josh Rasmussen, I’m sure there are other interesting philosophers that believe in God as well.
Usually people point to fine tuning, contingency, ontological arguments, and some variations of first mover arguments.
It’s not a belief that’s “off the table” in that sense.
That's not how it works bro. I don't have to prove "not god" any more than I have to prove "not Mystic Meg" or "not teapot". Your argument is the one positively claiming existence of something, you're the one who needs to provide the evidence.What evidence do you have for "not Santa"? None? So it's just as likely as not that Santa exists then, right? What about "not invisible f
Essentially this is the Russel’s teapot objection.
The issue with this objection is that it does cut both ways, because if you can appeal to the theoretical virtues of not positing certain entities, then others can appeal to the theoretical virtues of positing certain entities. For instance, most of the particles in particle physics were posited prior to being discovered. So if something makes sense of enough of the data it’s not in theory objectionable to posit that entity exists.
It’s only when the entity adds nothing to our theory can we happily reject it.
I think we are in danger of revisiting your layers of reality or whatever they were and, quite frankly, I'd rather get shot in the chest with projectile diarrhea than go back there.
You can’t hang.
You are not allowed at the adult table when it comes to things like life, reality, and truth.
But go ahead and keep posting about how stupid it is to believe in God.
People like me know the hierarchy.
Essentially this is the Russel’s teapot objection.The issue with this objection is that it does cut both ways, because if you can appeal to the theoretical virtues of not positing certain entities, then others can appeal to the theoretical virtues of positing certain entities. For instance, most of the particles in particle physics were posited prior to being discovered.
First of all, there was a lot more evidence, both theoretical and empirical for those particles than there is for a personal god.
Secondly, a personal god adds nothing useful to our understanding of the world; he/she in fact detracts from it.
First of all, there was a lot more evidence, both theoretical and empirical for those particles than there is for a personal god.
Secondly, a personal god adds nothing useful to our understanding of the world; he/she in fact detracts from it.
That’s question begging
Anyway, I’m just explaining the thought process believers have. I’m an atheist myself.
"Question begging" seems to be rather a common rebuttal to anti-religious arguments. I'm not sure how anything I said is presupposing the conclusion.
Well if they say “I am positing God because he makes sense of xyz data” (eg fine tuning, contingency, first causes) the proper response (at least to me) isn’t “that’s not true because he doesn’t make sense of any data that we see”, it would be to attack those arguments.
I don't think this is a perfect analogy. People who were positing that particles existed were not making faith-based arguments. There was evidence that suggested that the particles existed, even though the particles had not been "discovered."
That's not how it works bro. I don't have to prove "not god" any more than I have to prove "not Mystic Meg" or "not teapot". Your argument is the one positively claiming existence of something, you're the one who needs to provide the evidence. What evidence do you have for "not Santa"? None? So it's just as likely as not that Santa exists then, right? What about "not invisible
Okay, one more because I feel bad having my last post being a question.
I'm not trying to prove the existence of god and have no desire to try. I'm saying that a lot of the arguments for not god are basically "God wouldn't let that happen, therefore there is no god" and that's really lazy thinking.
I don't think this is a perfect analogy. People who were positing that particles existed were not making faith-based arguments. There was evidence that suggested that the particles existed, even though the particles had not been "discovered."
I used to think fine tuning was a really horrible argument from God but out of all the arguments from God it’s the most convincing, and also the one that I understand why people would think there’s a reason to propose a God over not a God.
So if there was some data that needed to be explained it would be that data about how seemingly arbitrary the constants of the universe are over any other values that could have been.
In fact many physicists posit the existence of a multiverse for that very reason that the underlying constants of the universe are so unlikely.
Okay, one more because I feel bad having my last post being a question.
I'm not trying to prove the existence of god and have no desire to try. I'm saying that a lot of the arguments for not god are basically "God wouldn't let that happen, therefore there is no god" and that's really lazy thinking.
Wow, he risked associating himself with me in order to post this. What grace.
I hope you all appreciate his sacrifice.
Okay, one more because I feel bad having my last post being a question.
I'm not trying to prove the existence of god and have no desire to try. I'm saying that a lot of the arguments for not god are basically "God wouldn't let that happen, therefore there is no god" and that's really lazy thinking.
Huh?
The original proposition was "whatever you do on earth surely doesn’t justify eternal torment or privation, whatever your preferred concept of hell is," which you seemed to object to.
By this logic being down 9 or 10 points is also a one possession game because it’s logically possible to force a safety, and then get the ball and score, which is all one single possession from the moment the safety is forced, no?Seems like a “possession” is not a very good measurement.If we’re using the same words to mean the same things then yes, but i
You just like to argue.
If you force a safety you did it on the other teams possession. When they kick to you it then becomes your possession. Common man!
I'm starting to think I'm being gang stocked. There is no way you people believe the nonsense you are spewing. Am I really the only person in all of these forums who knows ball?
