Author Topic: Probabilities of God's existence debate  (Read 41255 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline jdawg70

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1930
  • Darwins +347/-7
  • Ex-rosary squad
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #1189 on: May 23, 2014, 04:01:36 PM »
I get that.  I've understood that point for a long time now.  I really, really don't think that you understand that point.
Good. But you (more nogodsforme than you) keep bringing it up. Like if you did not understand. Why? What make you doubt my understanding of that?

So we're clear, the following is what I don't think you understand:
Yes.  Many different things.  Which is to say, you are slapping the label on one 'thing' and someone else is slapping the label on another, different 'thing'.  Even if those different 'things' have some similar characteristics.

So far as I can tell, this is essentially what you think I'm claiming:
You (who lives in Canada): Doug told me to bake a chocolate cake!
Theist #2 (who lives in South Africa): Doug told me to bake a raspberry cake!
Since someone that you and theist #2 called 'Doug' caused both of you to want to bake a cake (even though the flavors are different), that means that you and theist #2 are referring to the same person when you say 'Doug'.

When in reality, what I'm actually claiming is:
You (who lives in Canada): Doug told me to bake a chocolate cake!
Theist #2 (who lives in South Africa): Doug told me to bake a raspberry cake!
You and theist #2 are referring to two different people both named 'Doug'.

I believe that nogodsforme is saying essentially the same thing.

If I am misunderstanding you, please correct me.
"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."
- Eddie Izzard

Offline nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6406
  • Darwins +828/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #1190 on: May 23, 2014, 04:59:27 PM »
^^^^^That is exactly right.

Then the Canadian and the S. African both want to say that what "their Doug" told them is correct and they alone made the right cake. Lukvance is trying to argue that, even though there are clearly two different "Dougs" with different instructions, the fact that they both said to make a cake means they are the same person.
Extraordinary claims of the bible don't even have ordinary evidence.

Kids aren't paying attention most of the time in science classes so it seems silly to get worked up over ID being taught in schools.

Offline Lukvance

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1854
  • Darwins +13/-241
  • Gender: Male
  • Catholic
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #1191 on: May 24, 2014, 11:20:57 AM »
I am arguing that Doug exist.
You're worth more than my time

Offline median

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1845
  • Darwins +201/-16
  • Gender: Male
  • Yahweh: Obviously not obvious.
    • Talk Origins
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #1192 on: May 24, 2014, 10:52:53 PM »
Hello median, welcome back.
Before we can move on :
You attempted to equivocate on terms, shift the burden of proof, switch to red herring tactics, use false analogies, and assert argument from ignorance fallacies over and over again. ALL of those tactics are irrational, and your continued and perpetual attempts at using those tactics (in the face of the fact that they have been addressed) displays your epic dishonesty.
I get it. You feel the need to attack me personally. Now, Prove what you say about me or apologize.
NOPE. You don't get it. I have noted the fallacies that you keep attempting to use and have noted, in those posts, where the fallacies occurred. Once again, I'm not going to do your homework for you, nor am I going to be told by you what to do. If you can't open your eyes and read then that's not on me.

Now, "before we can move on" cogently define and then demonstrate that there is such a thing as "the immaterial".
« Last Edit: May 24, 2014, 10:55:00 PM by median »
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Carl Sagan

Offline Lukvance

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1854
  • Darwins +13/-241
  • Gender: Male
  • Catholic
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #1193 on: May 25, 2014, 09:25:04 AM »
Hello median, welcome back.
Before we can move on :
You attempted to equivocate on terms, shift the burden of proof, switch to red herring tactics, use false analogies, and assert argument from ignorance fallacies over and over again. ALL of those tactics are irrational, and your continued and perpetual attempts at using those tactics (in the face of the fact that they have been addressed) displays your epic dishonesty.
I get it. You feel the need to attack me personally. Now, Prove what you say about me or apologize.
NOPE. You don't get it. I have noted the fallacies that you keep attempting to use and have noted, in those posts, where the fallacies occurred. Once again, I'm not going to do your homework for you, nor am I going to be told by you what to do. If you can't open your eyes and read then that's not on me.

Now, "before we can move on" cogently define and then demonstrate that there is such a thing as "the immaterial".
Your accusations, your homework. Trust me, you'll find the supposed reply you hint to exist and the next post I will debunk it.
You're worth more than my time

Offline median

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1845
  • Darwins +201/-16
  • Gender: Male
  • Yahweh: Obviously not obvious.
    • Talk Origins
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #1194 on: May 25, 2014, 10:12:56 AM »
Hello median, welcome back.
Before we can move on :
You attempted to equivocate on terms, shift the burden of proof, switch to red herring tactics, use false analogies, and assert argument from ignorance fallacies over and over again. ALL of those tactics are irrational, and your continued and perpetual attempts at using those tactics (in the face of the fact that they have been addressed) displays your epic dishonesty.
I get it. You feel the need to attack me personally. Now, Prove what you say about me or apologize.
NOPE. You don't get it. I have noted the fallacies that you keep attempting to use and have noted, in those posts, where the fallacies occurred. Once again, I'm not going to do your homework for you, nor am I going to be told by you what to do. If you can't open your eyes and read then that's not on me.

Now, "before we can move on" cogently define and then demonstrate that there is such a thing as "the immaterial".
Your accusations, your homework. Trust me, you'll find the supposed reply you hint to exist and the next post I will debunk it.

NOPE. Sorry, it doesn't work that way - and no, I don't trust you.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Carl Sagan

Offline nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6406
  • Darwins +828/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #1195 on: May 25, 2014, 05:21:10 PM »
I am arguing that Doug exist.

Every Doug exists? Regardless of the fact that the different Dougs are telling people different things? Or is there only one Doug who is not very good at communicating, and is letting different people hear different things?
Extraordinary claims of the bible don't even have ordinary evidence.

Kids aren't paying attention most of the time in science classes so it seems silly to get worked up over ID being taught in schools.

Offline Lukvance

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1854
  • Darwins +13/-241
  • Gender: Male
  • Catholic
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #1196 on: May 25, 2014, 08:13:02 PM »
Every Doug exists? Regardless of the fact that the different Dougs are telling people different things? Or is there only one Doug who is not very good at communicating, and is letting different people hear different things?
I don't care, in both cases he exist.
You're worth more than my time

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12130
  • Darwins +646/-27
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #1197 on: May 26, 2014, 08:37:36 AM »
Do you even know of what model I am talking about? ...
You did say "all".  She even bolded it for you.
I was not addressing you. She can answer for herself (I think)

that does not discount his observation.  You did say "all" regardless of who points it out.  Your objection to Azdgari bringing it up is an attempt to evade the point.  Stop doing that, please.
Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline Lukvance

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1854
  • Darwins +13/-241
  • Gender: Male
  • Catholic
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #1198 on: May 26, 2014, 11:56:16 AM »
Do you even know of what model I am talking about? ...
You did say "all".  She even bolded it for you.
I was not addressing you. She can answer for herself (I think)

that does not discount his observation.  You did say "all" regardless of who points it out.  Your objection to Azdgari bringing it up is an attempt to evade the point.  Stop doing that, please.
You too?
What answer are you looking for that has not been answered yet?
God : the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe.
You're worth more than my time

Offline wheels5894

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2443
  • Darwins +106/-1
  • Gender: Male
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #1199 on: May 26, 2014, 12:13:04 PM »
Luk, where are you taking this discussion? You either

a. Have evidence that your god exists - as separate reality from those who believe in him

OR

b. You have no evidence but, for some reason, are prepared to believe this to be the case without any evidence at all.

Please stop messing about and tell us - have you evidence that your god exists?

As for the question of anything existing that is immaterial, well, once again, evidence is required. Are you going to provide any or just rely on faith[1]
 1. belief without evidence
No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

Offline nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6406
  • Darwins +828/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #1200 on: May 26, 2014, 01:17:33 PM »
Every Doug exists? Regardless of the fact that the different Dougs are telling people different things? Or is there only one Doug who is not very good at communicating, and is letting different people hear different things?
I don't care, in both cases he exist.

Sorry, you cannot have it both ways. Either there is one god, but is confusing people, or there are lots of different gods. (Or there are no gods, and people are imagining them.)
Extraordinary claims of the bible don't even have ordinary evidence.

Kids aren't paying attention most of the time in science classes so it seems silly to get worked up over ID being taught in schools.

Offline Lukvance

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1854
  • Darwins +13/-241
  • Gender: Male
  • Catholic
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #1201 on: May 26, 2014, 02:54:39 PM »
Of course I have evidence that my God exist. We even agreed on his existence. (In our mind)
What you ask for is another subject (proof of the existence of God outside our mind)
You're worth more than my time

Offline nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6406
  • Darwins +828/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #1202 on: May 26, 2014, 03:27:14 PM »
You are still trying to play games. Everything anyone can imagine "exists" in the mind. Any silliness a person can make up "exists" in the imaginary sense. We all agree with that.

However, imaginary means does not exist in the real world. You already know this. You don't go to a store and try to pay for food or clothes with imaginary money that "exists" only in your mind. You don't take someone else's car because you have an imaginary bill of sale for it. You would not go into a bank and try to withdraw an imaginary million dollars that only exists in your mind.

And, despite your claims to the contrary, you would not go to Beyoncé's home and try to move in, because of the unbounded love she has for you-- a love that only exists in your imagination.

You would be arrested or escorted to the funny farm if you did any of that. People who do are considered crazy or criminals.


Yet, despite these facts, you keep trying to say that stuff that you imagine is the same as stuff that exists out in the real world. You are only doing this because your god appears to be imaginary, and does not seem to have any existence out in the real world.

 Do you have some imaginary money that is accepted as real currency in stores? If not, why are you trying to pass your imaginary god off as real?

If what I am saying is not the case, what else have you got to show us?
Extraordinary claims of the bible don't even have ordinary evidence.

Kids aren't paying attention most of the time in science classes so it seems silly to get worked up over ID being taught in schools.

Offline wheels5894

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2443
  • Darwins +106/-1
  • Gender: Male
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #1203 on: May 26, 2014, 04:04:54 PM »
Of course I have evidence that my God exist. We even agreed on his existence. (In our mind)
What you ask for is another subject (proof of the existence of God outside our mind)

Boy! you catch on fast!
No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

Offline Lukvance

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1854
  • Darwins +13/-241
  • Gender: Male
  • Catholic
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #1204 on: May 26, 2014, 04:42:51 PM »
Yet, despite these facts, you keep trying to say that stuff that you imagine is the same as stuff that exists out in the real world. You are only doing this because your god appears to be imaginary, and does not seem to have any existence out in the real world.
I am not saying such a thing. You are the one saying it over and over and I am the one saying that it's not the subject here.
You're worth more than my time

Offline nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6406
  • Darwins +828/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #1205 on: May 26, 2014, 05:17:31 PM »
Yet, despite these facts, you keep trying to say that stuff that you imagine is the same as stuff that exists out in the real world. You are only doing this because your god appears to be imaginary, and does not seem to have any existence out in the real world.
I am not saying such a thing. You are the one saying it over and over and I am the one saying that it's not the subject here.

Yes, you are saying that.

You keep saying that god "exists" and then go on to say that by "exists" you mean that someone can imagine god. That is not what we are talking about when we are asking for evidence of god's existence.

We know that people can imagine god, and unicorns, and vampire boyfriends, and Vulcans. That is not the same as existence in reality. If someone behaves as if their boyfriend really is a vampire or if someone thinks that they are a Vulcan for real, we say they are mentally disturbed.

 You keep saying the same thing, because you really don't have any evidence of god outside of imagination.
Extraordinary claims of the bible don't even have ordinary evidence.

Kids aren't paying attention most of the time in science classes so it seems silly to get worked up over ID being taught in schools.

Offline Lukvance

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1854
  • Darwins +13/-241
  • Gender: Male
  • Catholic
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #1206 on: May 26, 2014, 05:55:31 PM »
Yes, you are saying that.
No, I'm not. :)

Quote
You keep saying that god "exists" and then go on to say that by "exists" you mean that someone can imagine god.
Not exactly. I compared it to Love. Which is imagination but with a lot more implications in you life than just "imagine god"
Quote
That is not what we are talking about when we are asking for evidence of god's existence.
And every time I tell you this is another discussion. Go read that discussion to satisfy your curiosity.

Quote
You keep saying the same thing, because you really don't have any evidence of god outside of imagination.
I keep saying the same thing because this is not the discussion here. I created a thread special for this kind of discussion.
You're worth more than my time

Offline nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6406
  • Darwins +828/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #1207 on: May 26, 2014, 06:34:59 PM »
In the time you have spent telling people what they can and cannot discuss in what place, you could have just given a clear answer. Instead, you want people to run from thread to thread, looking for some coherent response to....well, to anything you have been asked. You have spent a lot of posts saying nothing. Is that what you intend?

It all comes down to the same thing, no matter how many threads you start. Is there a real, physical god who can interact with people in any real way? If so, how can we know for sure? How can we detect the signs of this god?

You tell us we have to already think that the god is there for us to detect him. Which is impossible. Nobody does that in any other area of life, at least nobody sane. But that is what you are saying we need to do. Pretend that god is real, imagine that god is real, and then god will show up.

Would you buy a woman lots of expensive gifts when you have never met her? How about a friend gives you testimony that the model-- who still has never met you-- is in love with you? You have seen her picture in magazines and you now imagine that she is in love with you--would that make any sense? How much time and energy would you spend on that pretend romance?

You would think it was crazy to pay for a car before you knew for sure the car existed. Would you make payments on an imaginary car you have never seen, based on someone's testimony that the pretend car was real?

Yet, we are supposed to commit in some way to an imaginary being before it will reveal itself to us. Right. &)
Extraordinary claims of the bible don't even have ordinary evidence.

Kids aren't paying attention most of the time in science classes so it seems silly to get worked up over ID being taught in schools.

Offline Lukvance

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1854
  • Darwins +13/-241
  • Gender: Male
  • Catholic
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #1208 on: May 26, 2014, 06:41:18 PM »
You tell us we have to already think that the god is there for us to detect him. Which is impossible. Nobody does that in any other area of life, at least nobody sane. But that is what you are saying we need to do. Pretend that god is real, imagine that god is real, and then god will show up.
Really? Nobody? What about mathematicians? Don't they discover the math that is already there? Don't they need to acknowledge the existence of math to detect it?

Quote
Would you make payments on an imaginary car you have never seen, based on someone's testimony that the pretend car was real?
Yes. If these persons where my parents for instance.
You're worth more than my time

Offline nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6406
  • Darwins +828/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #1209 on: May 26, 2014, 06:47:29 PM »
Stick to the point, the way you want us to.
Extraordinary claims of the bible don't even have ordinary evidence.

Kids aren't paying attention most of the time in science classes so it seems silly to get worked up over ID being taught in schools.

Offline Lukvance

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1854
  • Darwins +13/-241
  • Gender: Male
  • Catholic
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #1210 on: May 26, 2014, 07:37:51 PM »
Stick to the point, the way you want us to.
Don't ask questions or say things that are not related to the point then ;)
You're worth more than my time

Online Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12222
  • Darwins +268/-31
  • Gender: Male
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #1211 on: May 26, 2014, 08:00:34 PM »
Really? Nobody? What about mathematicians? Don't they discover the math that is already there? Don't they need to acknowledge the existence of math to detect it?

Math is shown to them directly at school.  At such point as you or someone else does so with any gods, then your analogy will be apt.  Until then, it's just another excuse.

When someone makes a ton of excuses, they start to ring false.
The highest moral human authority is copied by our Gandhi neurons through observation.

Offline median

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1845
  • Darwins +201/-16
  • Gender: Male
  • Yahweh: Obviously not obvious.
    • Talk Origins
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #1212 on: May 26, 2014, 08:13:36 PM »
Of course I have evidence that my God exist. We even agreed on his existence. (In our mind)
What you ask for is another subject (proof of the existence of God outside our mind)

I actually did not agree to this at all and I strongly doubt that you even have a logically coherent conception of "God" in your mind. This can be demonstrated by your lack of ability to cogently define what "God" even means. Thus far, that word has been used (by you) as a filler for things which you do not understand or things which are subjective and not definitively assignable to any one thing.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Carl Sagan

Offline Lukvance

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1854
  • Darwins +13/-241
  • Gender: Male
  • Catholic
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #1213 on: May 26, 2014, 08:45:24 PM »
I actually did not agree to this at all and I strongly doubt that you even have a logically coherent conception of "God" in your mind. This can be demonstrated by your lack of ability to cogently define what "God" even means. Thus far, that word has been used (by you) as a filler for things which you do not understand or things which are subjective and not definitively assignable to any one thing.
REALLY!? I thought I was pretty clear back then :
God : the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe.
God : the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe.
Reply #804
I'm trying to prove to you (all) that nothing is real or everything is real.
Since God is a name and (for me) has the following definition : the one with all the qualities imaginable (the ultimate best). He does exist.
What more do you need?
You're worth more than my time

Offline nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6406
  • Darwins +828/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #1214 on: May 26, 2014, 08:56:16 PM »
All anyone agreed to, IIRC is that people can imagine what they think of as "god" in their minds. We never agreed that any god "existed" ie, that there was an actual god in anybody's mind.

A teenager can imagine that they are in love with a rock star they have never met and do not actually know. The teenager will also define the rocker as the supreme, the best, the one who rules, someone who can do no wrong. The teen might create an altar to the star, with pictures, memorabilia, autographs, etc. The teen might even think of the rocker as a god and come to as close to worship as is possible![1]

Although they could not possibly be in love with the rock star, the same brain chemicals will be produced, just as if the teen was really in love, and the same strong attachment feelings will be generated. If the teen ever does meet the rocker, and the star acts very differently from what the teen imagines them to be like (is boring, or acts like a rude jerk, or ignores the teenager like a normal person would when encountering a total stranger) they will experience feelings of rejection and be very disappointed.

When (as has happened many times, if the testimony of formerly religious atheists is to be believed) a person realizes that there is no god, they will feel very disappointed and let down, just like the teen who finds out the rocker does not really love them, or even care about them at all. Eventually, looking back later, they will probably feel foolish and even angry that they were tricked into believing something so silly. Just like the teenager will probably feel foolish later when they have moved on emotionally.

Unless anyone can produce any evidence to the contrary, we have to assume that when a person says that they "love god", "god loves" them, they "feel god's love" in their heart, they talk to god, god talks to them, god is working his magic in their life, etc. they are experiencing the same kind of phenomenon that the teen with a crush on the rock star feels.

The "love" between god and the believer is as imaginary as the "love" between the rock star and the (I won't do it) bedazzled teenager. Neither can produce any evidence other than what they feel, and what they imagine the other is doing. In both cases, if the attachment becomes obsessive we might refer to the person as a "fanatic".
 1. I am sure nobody here has ever done that, and does not currently have a teenager doing any of that cough One Direction cough.
Extraordinary claims of the bible don't even have ordinary evidence.

Kids aren't paying attention most of the time in science classes so it seems silly to get worked up over ID being taught in schools.

Offline Lukvance

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1854
  • Darwins +13/-241
  • Gender: Male
  • Catholic
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #1215 on: May 26, 2014, 09:57:10 PM »
All anyone agreed to, IIRC is that people can imagine what they think of as "god" in their minds. We never agreed that any god "existed" ie, that there was an actual god in anybody's mind.

A teenager can imagine that they are in love with a rock star they have never met and do not actually know. The teenager will also define the rocker as the supreme, the best, the one who rules, someone who can do no wrong. The teen might create an altar to the star, with pictures, memorabilia, autographs, etc. The teen might even think of the rocker as a god and come to as close to worship as is possible![1]

Although they could not possibly be in love with the rock star, the same brain chemicals will be produced, just as if the teen was really in love, and the same strong attachment feelings will be generated. If the teen ever does meet the rocker, and the star acts very differently from what the teen imagines them to be like (is boring, or acts like a rude jerk, or ignores the teenager like a normal person would when encountering a total stranger) they will experience feelings of rejection and be very disappointed.

When (as has happened many times, if the testimony of formerly religious atheists is to be believed) a person realizes that there is no god, they will feel very disappointed and let down, just like the teen who finds out the rocker does not really love them, or even care about them at all. Eventually, looking back later, they will probably feel foolish and even angry that they were tricked into believing something so silly. Just like the teenager will probably feel foolish later when they have moved on emotionally.

Unless anyone can produce any evidence to the contrary, we have to assume that when a person says that they "love god", "god loves" them, they "feel god's love" in their heart, they talk to god, god talks to them, god is working his magic in their life, etc. they are experiencing the same kind of phenomenon that the teen with a crush on the rock star feels.

The "love" between god and the believer is as imaginary as the "love" between the rock star and the (I won't do it) bedazzled teenager. Neither can produce any evidence other than what they feel, and what they imagine the other is doing. In both cases, if the attachment becomes obsessive we might refer to the person as a "fanatic".
 1. I am sure nobody here has ever done that, and does not currently have a teenager doing any of that cough One Direction cough.
Are the love and the rock star real?
You're worth more than my time

Online Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12222
  • Darwins +268/-31
  • Gender: Male
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #1216 on: May 26, 2014, 10:45:51 PM »
They are real fabrications.
The highest moral human authority is copied by our Gandhi neurons through observation.

Offline median

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1845
  • Darwins +201/-16
  • Gender: Male
  • Yahweh: Obviously not obvious.
    • Talk Origins
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #1217 on: May 27, 2014, 12:50:09 AM »
I actually did not agree to this at all and I strongly doubt that you even have a logically coherent conception of "God" in your mind. This can be demonstrated by your lack of ability to cogently define what "God" even means. Thus far, that word has been used (by you) as a filler for things which you do not understand or things which are subjective and not definitively assignable to any one thing.
REALLY!? I thought I was pretty clear back then :
God : the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe.
God : the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe.
Reply #804
I'm trying to prove to you (all) that nothing is real or everything is real.
Since God is a name and (for me) has the following definition : the one with all the qualities imaginable (the ultimate best). He does exist.
What more do you need?

"The ultimate best" is merely a use of language. It neither proves that you have a rational mental conception of some "being", nor does it demonstrate that such a conception is objective. "The ultimate best" is a subjective qualification (like saying "Oh chocolate ice cream is 'the best'"). You are trying the same trick that Anselm tried with his Ontological argument and that argument has already been refuted. You cannot merely use language to "poof" something into existence. Our language allows us to make shit up which is not real or actual (that's why we have Harry Potter movies). Such an ability has no bearing on whether a being actually exists.

Second, "the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe" is incoherent. What being? Where? What does it look like? What does it sound like? Where does it reside? How does it smell? If your alleged conception has no unique identifiable attributes that can be referred to then it is fundamentally no different from that which does-not-exist!

In order for something to be a "being" it must have attributes (positive identifiable characteristics). Please demonstrate such characteristics for your alleged "God" thing. As others have noted, if your alleged deity has no identifiable characteristics (and does not clearly demonstrably manifest in the world - in non-vague fashion) then it is no different from fiction. Please note that I am not asking you for what this alleged deity DOES. I am asking you to demonstrate what this alleged deity IS. What is it made of? If you attempt to argue that it is made of "immaterial stuff" then you haven't given any positive attributes because "immaterial" is a negative term (i.e. - without material). You need to provide POSITIVE characteristics of what makes up this "thing" that allegedly exists independently of human thought.  If you attempt to argue that God is a "spirit", then you will be back to square one. What IS a "spirit"? What is it made of? You will need to provide POSITIVE attributes of what an alleged "spirit" actually is, and what it's actual characteristics are. Furthermore, even if you could provide a rational definition of such a term you would still have all of your work ahead of you to actually demonstrate that such a conception actually exists independently of human brains.
« Last Edit: May 27, 2014, 12:56:01 AM by median »
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Carl Sagan