Total Posts:59|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Evidence: Part 2

PureX
Posts: 1,528
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2013 11:21:40 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
What is your "evidence" for the existence of love, or of honor, or of beauty, or of generosity?

And before you jump right in with examples of human behaviors based on these ideals, or with MRI brain scans or genetic bio-chemical personality markers, keep in mind that my next question is going to be:

How do these "evidences" differ in any significant way from being evidence for the existence of God?

And if we deny the evidence for one ideal, don't we then have to deny the evidence for all of them?

Is saying that God does not exist because there is no material "evidence" any different than saying that love does not exist for the same reason? And do any of us really want to make such a proclamation?
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2013 11:31:43 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/22/2013 11:21:40 AM, PureX wrote:
What is your "evidence" for the existence of love, or of honor, or of beauty, or of generosity?

And before you jump right in with examples of human behaviors based on these ideals, or with MRI brain scans or genetic bio-chemical personality markers, keep in mind that my next question is going to be:

How do these "evidences" differ in any significant way from being evidence for the existence of God?

Can you scan God using MRI? You just answered your own question lol


And if we deny the evidence for one ideal, don't we then have to deny the evidence for all of them?

Is saying that God does not exist because there is no material "evidence" any different than saying that love does not exist for the same reason? And do any of us really want to make such a proclamation?
PureX
Posts: 1,528
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2013 11:34:46 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/22/2013 11:31:43 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:

Can you scan God using MRI? You just answered your own question lol

Can you scan love, beauty, honor or generosity using MRI?

Does that mean they don't exist?
Fruitytree
Posts: 2,176
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2013 12:50:42 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Interesting,

But those are behaviours that can be witnessed at least, not necessarily explained.

Science is the study of Physical and Natural world, it can't talk about God , nor can it prove there is none. and crazy atheists need scientific evidence for God !! is there something wrong with their understanding of science ?!
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2013 12:53:04 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/22/2013 11:34:46 AM, PureX wrote:
At 4/22/2013 11:31:43 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:

Can you scan God using MRI? You just answered your own question lol

Can you scan love, beauty, honor or generosity using MRI?

Yes.

"Passionate Love in the Brain, as Revealed by MRI Scans [Web Exclusive Graphic]
http://www.scientificamerican.com...

"Researchers are using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to watch people's brains when they look at a photograph of their object of affection. According to Helen Fisher, a well-known love researcher and an anthropologist at Rutgers University, what they see in those scans during that "crazed, can't-think-of-anything-but stage of romance" -- the attraction stage -- is the biological drive to focus on one person. The scans showed increased blood flow in areas of the brain with high concentrations of receptors for dopamine -- associated with states of euphoria, craving and addiction"
http://www.howstuffworks.com...


Does that mean they don't exist?
PureX
Posts: 1,528
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2013 1:30:52 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/22/2013 12:50:42 PM, Fruitytree wrote:
Interesting,

But those are behaviours that can be witnessed at least, not necessarily explained.

I suppose they could be explained to some degree, as ideas. But they can't be 'objectively proven' to exist. And yet these ideas and their effect on our lives are of paramount importance to us as human beings.

Science is the study of Physical and Natural world, it can't talk about God , nor can it prove there is none. and crazy atheists need scientific evidence for God !! is there something wrong with their understanding of science ?!

It would seem that in this instance, science is proving to be quite inadequate: not exactly the "hammer or truth" that some folks seem to imagine it to be.
Radar
Posts: 424
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2013 1:37:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/22/2013 12:53:04 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/22/2013 11:34:46 AM, PureX wrote:
At 4/22/2013 11:31:43 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:

Can you scan God using MRI? You just answered your own question lol

Can you scan love, beauty, honor or generosity using MRI?

Yes.

"Passionate Love in the Brain, as Revealed by MRI Scans [Web Exclusive Graphic]
http://www.scientificamerican.com...

"Researchers are using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to watch people's brains when they look at a photograph of their object of affection. According to Helen Fisher, a well-known love researcher and an anthropologist at Rutgers University, what they see in those scans during that "crazed, can't-think-of-anything-but stage of romance" -- the attraction stage -- is the biological drive to focus on one person. The scans showed increased blood flow in areas of the brain with high concentrations of receptors for dopamine -- associated with states of euphoria, craving and addiction"
http://www.howstuffworks.com...



Does that mean they don't exist?

This kind of response was predictable because it is often the case that correlation is thought to be the real thing. I've even seen it argued that consciousness itself is seen in scans.
PureX
Posts: 1,528
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2013 1:39:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/22/2013 12:53:04 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/22/2013 11:34:46 AM, PureX wrote:
At 4/22/2013 11:31:43 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:

Can you scan God using MRI? You just answered your own question lol

Can you scan love, beauty, honor or generosity using MRI?

Yes.

"Passionate Love in the Brain, as Revealed by MRI Scans [Web Exclusive Graphic]
http://www.scientificamerican.com...

"Researchers are using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to watch people's brains when they look at a photograph of their object of affection. According to Helen Fisher, a well-known love researcher and an anthropologist at Rutgers University, what they see in those scans during that "crazed, can't-think-of-anything-but stage of romance" -- the attraction stage -- is the biological drive to focus on one person. The scans showed increased blood flow in areas of the brain with high concentrations of receptors for dopamine -- associated with states of euphoria, craving and addiction"
http://www.howstuffworks.com...
All the MRI is capturing is brain activity. Thus proving that love is an idea happening in our minds. But then an MRI would show brain activity when we look at images that call forth the idea of "God", too. Or for that matter, images calling forth any idea that we deem important.

So how does an MRI show that "God" is any less real than love, or beauty, or compassion? Or do you believe none of these are real?
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2013 2:07:52 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/22/2013 11:21:40 AM, PureX wrote:
What is your "evidence" for the existence of love, or of honor, or of beauty, or of generosity?

And before you jump right in with examples of human behaviors based on these ideals, or with MRI brain scans or genetic bio-chemical personality markers, keep in mind that my next question is going to be:

How do these "evidences" differ in any significant way from being evidence for the existence of God?

And if we deny the evidence for one ideal, don't we then have to deny the evidence for all of them?

Is saying that God does not exist because there is no material "evidence" any different than saying that love does not exist for the same reason? And do any of us really want to make such a proclamation?

No, it's completely different, since "love" is an abstract concept, a label applied to an emotional state, one that wouldn't exist if there was no consciousness.

Is "god" just a label for an emotional state? Or an abstract concept?
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
wiploc
Posts: 1,485
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2013 2:17:03 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/22/2013 11:21:40 AM, PureX wrote:
How do these "evidences" differ in any significant way from being evidence for the existence of God?

I don't know of any evidence for the existence of god. How about you present your evidence, and then we weigh it against the evidence for those other things.
Radar
Posts: 424
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2013 3:02:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/22/2013 2:07:52 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 4/22/2013 11:21:40 AM, PureX wrote:
What is your "evidence" for the existence of love, or of honor, or of beauty, or of generosity?

And before you jump right in with examples of human behaviors based on these ideals, or with MRI brain scans or genetic bio-chemical personality markers, keep in mind that my next question is going to be:

How do these "evidences" differ in any significant way from being evidence for the existence of God?

And if we deny the evidence for one ideal, don't we then have to deny the evidence for all of them?

Is saying that God does not exist because there is no material "evidence" any different than saying that love does not exist for the same reason? And do any of us really want to make such a proclamation?

No, it's completely different, since "love" is an abstract concept, a label applied to an emotional state, one that wouldn't exist if there was no consciousness.

Is "god" just a label for an emotional state? Or an abstract concept?

Yes. How many times must it be said that t word "God" is just a pointer?
PureX
Posts: 1,528
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2013 3:40:14 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/22/2013 2:07:52 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 4/22/2013 11:21:40 AM, PureX wrote:
What is your "evidence" for the existence of love, or of honor, or of beauty, or of generosity?

And before you jump right in with examples of human behaviors based on these ideals, or with MRI brain scans or genetic bio-chemical personality markers, keep in mind that my next question is going to be:

How do these "evidences" differ in any significant way from being evidence for the existence of God?

And if we deny the evidence for one ideal, don't we then have to deny the evidence for all of them?

Is saying that God does not exist because there is no material "evidence" any different than saying that love does not exist for the same reason? And do any of us really want to make such a proclamation?

No, it's completely different, since "love" is an abstract concept, a label applied to an emotional state, one that wouldn't exist if there was no consciousness.

Is "god" just a label for an emotional state? Or an abstract concept?

Are you defining "reality" as that which exists apart from our consciousness? That's what it seems like you are saying, here. If so, what would be your reasoning for imposing that delineation? And if you are making such a distinction, then love, beauty, and compassion must likewise be considered equally "unreal". Correct?
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2013 3:40:32 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/22/2013 3:02:30 PM, Radar wrote:
At 4/22/2013 2:07:52 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 4/22/2013 11:21:40 AM, PureX wrote:
What is your "evidence" for the existence of love, or of honor, or of beauty, or of generosity?

And before you jump right in with examples of human behaviors based on these ideals, or with MRI brain scans or genetic bio-chemical personality markers, keep in mind that my next question is going to be:

How do these "evidences" differ in any significant way from being evidence for the existence of God?

And if we deny the evidence for one ideal, don't we then have to deny the evidence for all of them?

Is saying that God does not exist because there is no material "evidence" any different than saying that love does not exist for the same reason? And do any of us really want to make such a proclamation?

No, it's completely different, since "love" is an abstract concept, a label applied to an emotional state, one that wouldn't exist if there was no consciousness.

Is "god" just a label for an emotional state? Or an abstract concept?

Yes. How many times must it be said that t word "God" is just a pointer?

For what?

In the case of love, we're talking about a specific emotional state. It makes sense only in context of an emotional state.

Are you saying God is simply "the emotional state of saying 'whoa, God'?"
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2013 3:42:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/22/2013 3:40:14 PM, PureX wrote:

Are you defining "reality" as that which exists apart from our consciousness? That's what it seems like you are saying, here. If so, what would be your reasoning for imposing that delineation? And if you are making such a distinction, then love, beauty, and compassion must likewise be considered equally "unreal". Correct?

I have no idea how you'd get that from my post. What I said was that they're labels for emotional states. "Love" without the context of consciousness isn't a thing.

Are you saying "God" is a label for...what, exactly? Because if it's just "God is the label for the feeling of god", that's great and all, and sure, you can say it, but almost no theist whatsoever agrees with it. Most theists belive in an actual being.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Radar
Posts: 424
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2013 3:53:36 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/22/2013 3:40:32 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 4/22/2013 3:02:30 PM, Radar wrote:
At 4/22/2013 2:07:52 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 4/22/2013 11:21:40 AM, PureX wrote:
What is your "evidence" for the existence of love, or of honor, or of beauty, or of generosity?

And before you jump right in with examples of human behaviors based on these ideals, or with MRI brain scans or genetic bio-chemical personality markers, keep in mind that my next question is going to be:

How do these "evidences" differ in any significant way from being evidence for the existence of God?

And if we deny the evidence for one ideal, don't we then have to deny the evidence for all of them?

Is saying that God does not exist because there is no material "evidence" any different than saying that love does not exist for the same reason? And do any of us really want to make such a proclamation?

No, it's completely different, since "love" is an abstract concept, a label applied to an emotional state, one that wouldn't exist if there was no consciousness.

Is "god" just a label for an emotional state? Or an abstract concept?

Yes. How many times must it be said that t word "God" is just a pointer?

For what?


If there was a "what" we wouldn't need pointers pointing to what lies beyond what-ness, now would we?
PureX
Posts: 1,528
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2013 4:00:49 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/22/2013 3:42:44 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 4/22/2013 3:40:14 PM, PureX wrote:

Are you defining "reality" as that which exists apart from our consciousness? That's what it seems like you are saying, here. If so, what would be your reasoning for imposing that delineation? And if you are making such a distinction, then love, beauty, and compassion must likewise be considered equally "unreal". Correct?

I have no idea how you'd get that from my post.

Sorry, I don't think I expressed myself very well.

What I said was that they're labels for emotional states. "Love" without the context of consciousness isn't a thing.

I don't see how emotional states can exist apart from the ideas that trigger them. So "God" and "love" and "beauty" etc., are all terms that refer to ideas as well as the emotional experiences that accompany them. Where are you drawing the "reality" line, here? Between consciousness and emotion? Between emotion and idea? Between consciousness and unconsciousness?

Are you saying "God" is a label for...what, exactly? Because if it's just "God is the label for the feeling of god", that's great and all, and sure, you can say it, but almost no theist whatsoever agrees with it. Most theists belive in an actual being.

I'm saying that "God" refers to a human being's experience of reality that is not significantly different than any other experience of reality that we might have. And that, as such, the claim that "God is not real" is both spurious and arbitrary. And I'm using examples of other words that likewise refer to similar experiences of reality to make the point. As the very same people who believe and declare that "God is not real" would not make that same claim about love, beauty, compassion, or generosity, or any number of other similar human idea-experiences of reality.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2013 4:01:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/22/2013 3:53:36 PM, Radar wrote:

Is "god" just a label for an emotional state? Or an abstract concept?

Yes. How many times must it be said that t word "God" is just a pointer?

For what?


If there was a "what" we wouldn't need pointers pointing to what lies beyond what-ness, now would we?

So the term "god" is a pointer to nothing? You're an atheist, then?
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2013 4:03:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/22/2013 11:21:40 AM, PureX wrote:
What is your "evidence" for the existence of love, or of honor, or of beauty, or of generosity?

Humans seem to exhibit those emotions and I feel them. Or see beauty.


And before you jump right in with examples of human behaviors based on these ideals, or with MRI brain scans or genetic bio-chemical personality markers, keep in mind that my next question is going to be:

How do these "evidences" differ in any significant way from being evidence for the existence of God?

Because they are there? There is a lot of evidence for them.


And if we deny the evidence for one ideal, don't we then have to deny the evidence for all of them?

Do we?


Is saying that God does not exist because there is no material "evidence" any different than saying that love does not exist for the same reason? And do any of us really want to make such a proclamation?

No. Love creates actions, and I can feel it. God is an idea, which I don't believe has much evidence of any kind.
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2013 4:04:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/22/2013 2:17:03 PM, wiploc wrote:
At 4/22/2013 11:21:40 AM, PureX wrote:
How do these "evidences" differ in any significant way from being evidence for the existence of God?

I don't know of any evidence for the existence of god. How about you present your evidence, and then we weigh it against the evidence for those other things.

I feel love for you Wiploc, but love may not be real, maybe... lol
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2013 4:07:52 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/22/2013 4:00:49 PM, PureX wrote:

I'm saying that "God" refers to a human being's experience of reality that is not significantly different than any other experience of reality that we might have. And that, as such, the claim that "God is not real" is both spurious and arbitrary.

Well, as that definition is not what is generally meant by "god", I would strongly disagree. You've constructed a "spurious and arbitrary" definition of god that removes the concept of it being a "being" and changes it to the "experience of reality". I could define the Devil as this empty beer bottle, and if you accept that definition, then the Devil clearly exists. But that's not what people mean when they're talking about the Devil, now, is it?

And I'm using examples of other words that likewise refer to similar experiences of reality to make the point.

But those words you use refer only to emotional states. If there was no consciousness, there would be no "love".

As the very same people who believe and declare that "God is not real" would not make that same claim about love, beauty, compassion, or generosity, or any number of other similar human idea-experiences of reality.

Except those are words which reflect a specific reality-state: a mental state of X. God, on the other hand, is generally supposed to be an actual being, and the word is a tag for that being. If that being does not exist, then God does not exist, in the same way as if there was no love whatsoever in humanity, love would not exist. That is what is meant by "God does not exist"; the being identified by the tag "God" lacks the attribute "existence". Obviously the word exists. But does the being that the word purports to represent exist? Until there is proof to the contrary, I'm going to assume "No", just as I'm going to assume Zeus doesn't exist, or unicorns, or the one-eyed, one-horned, flying purple people eater.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2013 4:08:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/22/2013 4:00:49 PM, PureX wrote:
At 4/22/2013 3:42:44 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 4/22/2013 3:40:14 PM, PureX wrote:

Are you defining "reality" as that which exists apart from our consciousness? That's what it seems like you are saying, here. If so, what would be your reasoning for imposing that delineation? And if you are making such a distinction, then love, beauty, and compassion must likewise be considered equally "unreal". Correct?

I have no idea how you'd get that from my post.

Sorry, I don't think I expressed myself very well.

What I said was that they're labels for emotional states. "Love" without the context of consciousness isn't a thing.

I don't see how emotional states can exist apart from the ideas that trigger them. So "God" and "love" and "beauty" etc., are all terms that refer to ideas as well as the emotional experiences that accompany them. Where are you drawing the "reality" line, here? Between consciousness and emotion? Between emotion and idea? Between consciousness and unconsciousness?

Idea - Processing information and storing data etc.
Emotion - Behavioural driver, motivation, creates action.

They're different, no? Define consciousness, then ask the question again./


Are you saying "God" is a label for...what, exactly? Because if it's just "God is the label for the feeling of god", that's great and all, and sure, you can say it, but almost no theist whatsoever agrees with it. Most theists belive in an actual being.

I'm saying that "God" refers to a human being's experience of reality that is not significantly different than any other experience of reality that we might have. And that, as such, the claim that "God is not real" is both spurious and arbitrary. And I'm using examples of other words that likewise refer to similar experiences of reality to make the point. As the very same people who believe and declare that "God is not real" would not make that same claim about love, beauty, compassion, or generosity, or any number of other similar human idea-experiences of reality.

The idea of God is real. If you claim there is an actual God outside of ideas, then substantiate your claim.
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2013 4:11:32 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/22/2013 3:53:36 PM, Radar wrote:

If there was a "what" we wouldn't need pointers pointing to what lies beyond what-ness, now would we?

So you're saying stupid people use the term "God" to talk about things they don't understand?

Please correct me if I've interpreted what you're saying incorrectly, but you're being quite vague.
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
PureX
Posts: 1,528
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2013 4:27:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/22/2013 4:03:10 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 4/22/2013 11:21:40 AM, PureX wrote:
What is your "evidence" for the existence of love, or of honor, or of beauty, or of generosity?

Humans seem to exhibit those emotions and I feel them. Or see beauty.


And before you jump right in with examples of human behaviors based on these ideals, or with MRI brain scans or genetic bio-chemical personality markers, keep in mind that my next question is going to be:

How do these "evidences" differ in any significant way from being evidence for the existence of God?

Because they are there? There is a lot of evidence for them.


And if we deny the evidence for one ideal, don't we then have to deny the evidence for all of them?

Do we?


Is saying that God does not exist because there is no material "evidence" any different than saying that love does not exist for the same reason? And do any of us really want to make such a proclamation?

No. Love creates actions, and I can feel it. God is an idea, which I don't believe has much evidence of any kind.

It sounds to me like your whole criteria for the existence/reality of "God" is that you, personally, don't experience it as an idea. Ideas that are disembodied from our experience of reality become "unreal", and meaningless to us. Naturally.

Just sayin'
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2013 4:35:52 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/22/2013 4:27:13 PM, PureX wrote:
At 4/22/2013 4:03:10 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 4/22/2013 11:21:40 AM, PureX wrote:
What is your "evidence" for the existence of love, or of honor, or of beauty, or of generosity?

Humans seem to exhibit those emotions and I feel them. Or see beauty.


And before you jump right in with examples of human behaviors based on these ideals, or with MRI brain scans or genetic bio-chemical personality markers, keep in mind that my next question is going to be:

How do these "evidences" differ in any significant way from being evidence for the existence of God?

Because they are there? There is a lot of evidence for them.


And if we deny the evidence for one ideal, don't we then have to deny the evidence for all of them?

Do we?


Is saying that God does not exist because there is no material "evidence" any different than saying that love does not exist for the same reason? And do any of us really want to make such a proclamation?

No. Love creates actions, and I can feel it. God is an idea, which I don't believe has much evidence of any kind.

It sounds to me like your whole criteria for the existence/reality of "God" is that you, personally, don't experience it as an idea. Ideas that are disembodied from our experience of reality become "unreal", and meaningless to us. Naturally.

Just sayin'

It doesn't sound like you're saying anything, to be fair.
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
Radar
Posts: 424
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2013 4:56:03 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/22/2013 4:11:32 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 4/22/2013 3:53:36 PM, Radar wrote:

If there was a "what" we wouldn't need pointers pointing to what lies beyond what-ness, now would we?

So you're saying stupid people use the term "God" to talk about things they don't understand?

Please correct me if I've interpreted what you're saying incorrectly, but you're being quite vague.

LOL!! That's a good example of "equivocation." You're right to imply that God is beyond human comprehension, but that doesn't mean that God-talk is talking about something unknowable. There is more than one kind of knowing. For example, a person can have all the conceptual knowledge there is to have about scuba diving, but unless he or she has the experience of doing so, can they really be said to know scuba diving? If a person has experience with scuba diving but no conceptual understanding of it, can they be said to be ignorant of scuba diving?

How many times must it be said that "God" is a pointer or place holder pointing to a genuine experience of an ineffable reality? Really, there seems to be some kind pitbull mentality at work here. Atheists and agnostics simply do not want to let go of the idea that God is "out there" and can be grasped like a table or chair.
PureX
Posts: 1,528
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2013 4:59:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/22/2013 4:07:52 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 4/22/2013 4:00:49 PM, PureX wrote:

I'm saying that "God" refers to a human being's experience of reality that is not significantly different than any other experience of reality that we might have. And that, as such, the claim that "God is not real" is both spurious and arbitrary.

Well, as that definition is not what is generally meant by "god", I would strongly disagree. You've constructed a "spurious and arbitrary" definition of god that removes the concept of it being a "being" and changes it to the "experience of reality". I could define the Devil as this empty beer bottle, and if you accept that definition, then the Devil clearly exists. But that's not what people mean when they're talking about the Devil, now, is it?

If you want to go argue with those others, because their "God" is easier for you to pick apart, go ahead.

And I'm using examples of other words that likewise refer to similar experiences of reality to make the point.

But those words you use refer only to emotional states. If there was no consciousness, there would be no "love".

Those words refer to ideas as well as an emotional experience.

And if there were no consciousness, there would be no questions, debates, ideas, experiences, language, computers to play on, etc, etc, etc., ... This would all be moot.

As the very same people who believe and declare that "God is not real" would not make that same claim about love, beauty, compassion, or generosity, or any number of other similar human idea-experiences of reality.

Except those are words which reflect a specific reality-state: a mental state of X.

Oh, do they? How do you know? Can you experience the ideas and emotions of others? When they say "love", you imagine that you know what they mean and you accept it as an idea, and yet when they say "God" you imagine you know what they mean and reject the idea. Why do you think you do that?

God, on the other hand, is generally supposed to be an actual being, and the word is a tag for that being.

Is that so? Or is that just so for some people? Or maybe it's just that way in your own mind, about theists, because you find that notion so easy to reject? I'm not picking on you, I'm just asking you some questions that I think you should probably be asking yourself.

If that being does not exist, then God does not exist, in the same way as if there was no love whatsoever in humanity, love would not exist.

But the idea and experience of both "God" and "love" do exist within humanity, no doubt about that. And whatever exists when humanity no longer exists, is moot.

That is what is meant by "God does not exist"; the being identified by the tag "God" lacks the attribute "existence".

So, the "being" that you imagine other people are imagining to be "God" does not exist because it lacks the attributes of existence as you understand them? You don't see the possible flaws in this line of thought?

Obviously the word exists. But does the being that the word purports to represent exist? Until there is proof to the contrary, I'm going to assume "No".

You know what they say about that word "assume" ...
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2013 4:59:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/22/2013 4:56:03 PM, Radar wrote:
At 4/22/2013 4:11:32 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 4/22/2013 3:53:36 PM, Radar wrote:

If there was a "what" we wouldn't need pointers pointing to what lies beyond what-ness, now would we?

So you're saying stupid people use the term "God" to talk about things they don't understand?

Please correct me if I've interpreted what you're saying incorrectly, but you're being quite vague.

LOL!! That's a good example of "equivocation." You're right to imply that God is beyond human comprehension, but that doesn't mean that God-talk is talking about something unknowable. There is more than one kind of knowing. For example, a person can have all the conceptual knowledge there is to have about scuba diving, but unless he or she has the experience of doing so, can they really be said to know scuba diving? If a person has experience with scuba diving but no conceptual understanding of it, can they be said to be ignorant of scuba diving?

How many times must it be said that "God" is a pointer or place holder pointing to a genuine experience of an ineffable reality? Really, there seems to be some kind pitbull mentality at work here. Atheists and agnostics simply do not want to let go of the idea that God is "out there" and can be grasped like a table or chair.

It seems more likely that it's a trick of the mind.

You make "God" as vague as possible, and stretch the definition so much, just to make the thing real. What does "God" even mean to you? I doubt it means the same to you as it does to most people, including me.
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
Radar
Posts: 424
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2013 5:10:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/22/2013 4:59:17 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 4/22/2013 4:56:03 PM, Radar wrote:
At 4/22/2013 4:11:32 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 4/22/2013 3:53:36 PM, Radar wrote:

If there was a "what" we wouldn't need pointers pointing to what lies beyond what-ness, now would we?

So you're saying stupid people use the term "God" to talk about things they don't understand?

Please correct me if I've interpreted what you're saying incorrectly, but you're being quite vague.

LOL!! That's a good example of "equivocation." You're right to imply that God is beyond human comprehension, but that doesn't mean that God-talk is talking about something unknowable. There is more than one kind of knowing. For example, a person can have all the conceptual knowledge there is to have about scuba diving, but unless he or she has the experience of doing so, can they really be said to know scuba diving? If a person has experience with scuba diving but no conceptual understanding of it, can they be said to be ignorant of scuba diving?

How many times must it be said that "God" is a pointer or place holder pointing to a genuine experience of an ineffable reality? Really, there seems to be some kind pitbull mentality at work here. Atheists and agnostics simply do not want to let go of the idea that God is "out there" and can be grasped like a table or chair.

It seems more likely that it's a trick of the mind.

You make "God" as vague as possible, and stretch the definition so much, just to make the thing real. What does "God" even mean to you? I doubt it means the same to you as it does to most people, including me.

There you go. Now you're getting it! Embracing uncertainty is freeing.

Isn't it ironic that the last of the classical Greek philosophers used reason to more or less say reason must go?
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2013 5:11:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/22/2013 5:10:01 PM, Radar wrote:

There you go. Now you're getting it! Embracing uncertainty is freeing.

Isn't it ironic that the last of the classical Greek philosophers used reason to more or less say reason must go?

There's no need to be condescending. Especially when you're basically making unfounded assumptions with several of the things you type.
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2013 5:12:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/22/2013 4:59:02 PM, PureX wrote:

If you want to go argue with those others, because their "God" is easier for you to pick apart, go ahead.

It's not that their definition is "easier for me to pick apart", it's that that's what the word means. If you're just saying that God is nonexistent except as an emotional feeling, then I won't say it doesn't exist.

Those words refer to ideas as well as an emotional experience.

No, they don't. They refer explicitly to emotional states.


And if there were no consciousness, there would be no questions, debates, ideas, experiences, language, computers to play on, etc, etc, etc., ... This would all be moot.

No, this wouldn't be moot. This would be nonexistent. There's a difference. You see, if God exists outside of humanity, then our existence doesn't matter. Emotional states exist within the mind; without the mind, there isn't the state. So equating them is simply not appropriate, unless what you're saying is that God only exists in the mind. And if you're saying that, I doubt you'd find an atheist who disagreed.

Oh, do they? How do you know? Can you experience the ideas and emotions of others? When they say "love", you imagine that you know what they mean and you accept it as an idea, and yet when they say "God" you imagine you know what they mean and reject the idea. Why do you think you do that?

Ah, the old "Is your blue my blue therefore God exists" argument. Now you're just being disingenuous.

Define God. I can define Love. I can define blue. And I can normally define God, as is commonly understood. Clearly, you want to play semantical games. But that's fine: Specifically define your god.

Is that so?

Yes

Or is that just so for some people? Or maybe it's just that way in your own mind, about theists, because you find that notion so easy to reject? I'm not picking on you, I'm just asking you some questions that I think you should probably be asking yourself.

No, you aren't. You're trying to play a solipsistic semantics game here. Shall I run a poll on how many theists on here think God is a being with a will?

But the idea and experience of both "God" and "love" do exist within humanity, no doubt about that. And whatever exists when humanity no longer exists, is moot.

Not at all, that's simply absurd. The earth would exist if humanity didn't. Are you saying God wouldn't? Therefore, just as the earth existed before humanity, are you saying God didn't exist before humanity?

So, the "being" that you imagine other people are imagining to be "God" does not exist because it lacks the attributes of existence as you understand them? You don't see the possible flaws in this line of thought?

What I see is you obviously trolling. If you want to have a debate on what the meaning of "is" is, I can get you Bill Clinton's mailing address.


Obviously the word exists. But does the being that the word purports to represent exist? Until there is proof to the contrary, I'm going to assume "No".

You know what they say about that word "assume" ..

No, what do they say? Or is that just what some people say? Or are you just assuming that people mean assume the same way you do? And who is "You"? Maybe they mean "Say" as an emotional state divorced from any utterance or writing...
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!