Total Posts:26|Showing Posts:1-26
Jump to topic:

Atheists, proof of God?

janesix
Posts: 3,443
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2015 1:02:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
What would you consider to be "proof" that there is an intelligent creator?

I'm assuming this would be objective, verifiable proof,and not subjective experience.
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2015 1:15:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/19/2015 1:02:54 PM, janesix wrote:
What would you consider to be "proof" that there is an intelligent creator?

I'm assuming this would be objective, verifiable proof,and not subjective experience.

All it takes is witnessing the alleged being doing the things he/she is supposed to be capable of. So if you're just going with the watered-down, safe definition of "god" as intelligent creator (of the universe, I'm assuming), then I just need to see this god make a universe in the same way he/she made ours.
Nicoszon_the_Great
Posts: 167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2015 1:20:43 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/19/2015 1:02:54 PM, janesix wrote:
What would you consider to be "proof" that there is an intelligent creator?

I'm assuming this would be objective, verifiable proof,and not subjective experience.

If you can't provide the actual deity itself then I would say evidence of some sort of energy foreign to our existence that clearly took part in the formation.
Problem with that is that we don't know everything about existence and its entirely possible we never will. So it really calls for that 'extraordinary' evidence.
ironslippers
Posts: 509
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2015 1:43:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/19/2015 1:02:54 PM, janesix wrote:
What would you consider to be "proof" that there is an intelligent creator?

I'm assuming this would be objective, verifiable proof,and not subjective experience.

I'll settle for lunch with THE intelligent creator, maybe at Spago, I'll have the divinity salad and a chardonnay.
Then we would could get in my car and drive up to the Hollywood Hills, Looking down the valley I'll ask WTF?
Everyone stands on their own dung hill and speaks out about someone else's - Nathan Krusemark
Its easier to criticize and hate than it is to support and create - I Ron Slippers
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,952
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2015 1:53:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
There are two ways to gain knowledge: empirically and rationally.

Empirically, it depends on what one considers to be proof. Inductive evidence of God includes teleology, objective morality, a first cause, NDE's of an afterlife, and the origin of specified-complex information in the first DNA molecule.

The only deductive (rational or based on pure reasoning) argument for God other than the ontological argument:

P1. God is a necessary precondition for knowledge.

P2. People know things (or some other statement pertaining to logic or morality).

C. Therefore God exists.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2015 2:26:55 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/19/2015 1:02:54 PM, janesix wrote:
What would you consider to be "proof" that there is an intelligent creator?

I think that all reasonable evidences for intelligent creation have already failed, Jane.

The lack of intelligence behind evolution for example, is visible in the pace of species development, and the number of extinctions, and the evidence for abiogenesis is abundant and mounting. So I can't see (nor have I found any expert opinion on) what evidence could now demonstrate that terrestrial life was created intelligently.

Various stages of the Big Bang -- like the separation of matter from antimatter -- are inefficient and therefore unlikely to point to an engineered universe either. Again, I've yet to see any expert opinion that believes in engineering, or that could identify what evidence would make an engineer plausible. So however our universe might have arisen, it doesn't look like it was engineered.

Moreover, suppose we found a way to engineer a universe ourselves, and we could see evidence that our universe were the product of a similar operation, that would not be evidence for a deity -- just a process. So hunting for evidence of a creator is not a path to theism -- it's at best a path to Deism.

Theists need more than just a creator anyway. They need evidence of a metaphysical being (creator or not) that wants a relationship with humanity. And the biggest evidence against that, is that any claims of such contact are either untestable or debunked. We have ample evidence to show that delusion and deceit are better explanations for theism than actual contact, and some pretty strong cosmogenic and biogenic evidence that there's nothing worth trying to contact in the first place.

I think theists could do a lot better thinking about how to maintain spirituality, cultural cohesion and social relevance in the absence of credible revelations and eschatological prophecies than desperately combing the cracks of science for crumbs of dying hope that their ignorant, ancient prophets -- while wrong about physics, astronomy, geology, history, medicine, biology, psychology, and meteorology -- were nevertheless right about metaphysics.
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2015 3:58:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/19/2015 1:53:46 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
There are two ways to gain knowledge: empirically and rationally.

Empirically, it depends on what one considers to be proof. Inductive evidence of God includes teleology, objective morality, a first cause, NDE's of an afterlife, and the origin of specified-complex information in the first DNA molecule.

The only deductive (rational or based on pure reasoning) argument for God other than the ontological argument:

P1. God is a necessary precondition for knowledge.

P2. People know things (or some other statement pertaining to logic or morality).

C. Therefore God exists.

P1) Knowledge of P1 (of your argument) can only come from God or not god.

P2) If it is the case that it came from God then the argument begs the question.

P3) If it is the case that it came from not god, then the argument is self refuting.

C1) In either case the argument is flawed.

C2) It is not the case that knowledge requires god.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
Iredia
Posts: 1,608
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2015 4:08:01 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/19/2015 1:02:54 PM, janesix wrote:
What would you consider to be "proof" that there is an intelligent creator?

I'm assuming this would be objective, verifiable proof,and not subjective experience.

Living things. Supposing they had no genes their complexity would still be inexplicable using purely natural processes. The fact that they have genes, plus the fact that some are conscious and that man in particular is intelligent precludes the possibility they arose naturally and points solely to a Creator God.
Porn babes be distracting me. Dudes be stealing me stuff. I'm all about the cash from now. I'm not playing Jesus anymore.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,952
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2015 4:22:07 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/19/2015 3:58:08 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 6/19/2015 1:53:46 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
There are two ways to gain knowledge: empirically and rationally.

Empirically, it depends on what one considers to be proof. Inductive evidence of God includes teleology, objective morality, a first cause, NDE's of an afterlife, and the origin of specified-complex information in the first DNA molecule.

The only deductive (rational or based on pure reasoning) argument for God other than the ontological argument:

P1. God is a necessary precondition for knowledge.

P2. People know things (or some other statement pertaining to logic or morality).

C. Therefore God exists.

P1) Knowledge of P1 (of your argument) can only come from God or not god.

P2) If it is the case that it came from God then the argument begs the question.

P3) If it is the case that it came from not god, then the argument is self refuting.

C1) In either case the argument is flawed.

C2) It is not the case that knowledge requires god.

P1. A sculpter is a necessary precondition for a sculpture
P2. There is a sculpture
C. There is a sculpter.

There's nothing wrong with the way the argument is formulated.

Begging the question description: "Any form of argument where the conclusion is assumed in one of the premises"
http://www.logicallyfallacious.com...

If anything, the objection to the argument is with supporting P1.
Iredia
Posts: 1,608
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2015 4:37:01 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/19/2015 2:26:55 PM, RuvDraba wrote:

I think that all reasonable evidences for intelligent creation have already failed, Jane.

No, they haven't. The only thing that would make you think so is a materialist bias. Or maybe ignorance as to the arguments of creationists, ID in particular.


The lack of intelligence behind evolution for example, is visible in the pace of species development, and the number of extinctions, and the evidence for abiogenesis is abundant and mounting. So I can't see (nor have I found any expert opinion on) what evidence could now demonstrate that terrestrial life was created intelligently.

The evidence of abiogenesis is poor because it routinely fails to consider adverse factors and natural conditions in which life precursors supposedly started.

As extinctions and the pace of species development go it is most clear that they contradict the idea that natural selection accounts for common ancestry. When species lack factors crucial to their existence they don't evolve, they die off. The only variation we observe is in virtually all cases limited to the species level with not a whiff of change showing that universal common descent is true.


Various stages of the Big Bang -- like the separation of matter from antimatter -- are inefficient and therefore unlikely to point to an engineered universe either. Again, I've yet to see any expert opinion that believes in engineering, or that could identify what evidence would make an engineer plausible. So however our universe might have arisen, it doesn't look like it was engineered.

One question on the Big Bang. Was the singularity from which the Big Bang started material in nature ?


Moreover, suppose we found a way to engineer a universe ourselves, and we could see evidence that our universe were the product of a similar operation, that would not be evidence for a deity -- just a process. So hunting for evidence of a creator is not a path to theism -- it's at best a path to Deism.

We can never engineer the universe. In fact, merely engineering weather is next to impossible. That said I do believe most arguments for God point to a deistic God. More evidence would be required to argue for the God of a religion eg evidence of the efficacy of faith healing for Christianity.


Theists need more than just a creator anyway. They need evidence of a metaphysical being (creator or not) that wants a relationship with humanity. And the biggest evidence against that, is that any claims of such contact are either untestable or debunked. We have ample evidence to show that delusion and deceit are better explanations for theism than actual contact, and some pretty strong cosmogenic and biogenic evidence that there's nothing worth trying to contact in the first place.

What is this ample evidence showing delusion and deceit explain theism ? BTW I would think there's no evidence that there's extra-terrestial life worth finding and yet scientists seek it, maybe to bolster a materialistic belief, no ?


I think theists could do a lot better thinking about how to maintain spirituality, cultural cohesion and social relevance in the absence of credible revelations and eschatological prophecies than desperately combing the cracks of science for crumbs of dying hope that their ignorant, ancient prophets -- while wrong about physics, astronomy, geology, history, medicine, biology, psychology, and meteorology -- were nevertheless right about metaphysics.

Religion was the means spirituality, cultural cohesion and social life began in the first place. You also are ignoring the fact that religions such as Buddhism and Confucianism lack the revelations or prophecies you speak of and in no way contradict science, at least, to my knowledge.
Porn babes be distracting me. Dudes be stealing me stuff. I'm all about the cash from now. I'm not playing Jesus anymore.
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2015 4:44:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/19/2015 1:53:46 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
There are two ways to gain knowledge: empirically and rationally.

Empirically, it depends on what one considers to be proof. Inductive evidence of God includes teleology, objective morality, a first cause, NDE's of an afterlife, and the origin of specified-complex information in the first DNA molecule.

The only deductive (rational or based on pure reasoning) argument for God other than the ontological argument:

P1. God is a necessary precondition for knowledge.

P2. People know things (or some other statement pertaining to logic or morality).

C. Therefore God exists.
At last Ben became a presuppositionalist.
We all feared it would happen, but we knew it would happen eventually.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,952
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2015 4:56:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/19/2015 4:44:56 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 6/19/2015 1:53:46 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
There are two ways to gain knowledge: empirically and rationally.

Empirically, it depends on what one considers to be proof. Inductive evidence of God includes teleology, objective morality, a first cause, NDE's of an afterlife, and the origin of specified-complex information in the first DNA molecule.

The only deductive (rational or based on pure reasoning) argument for God other than the ontological argument:

P1. God is a necessary precondition for knowledge.

P2. People know things (or some other statement pertaining to logic or morality).

C. Therefore God exists.
At last Ben became a presuppositionalist.
We all feared it would happen, but we knew it would happen eventually.

I haven't used this argument much and don't know to what extent I agree with it, but it seems true. "Knowledge" presupposes that abstract, invariant, and universal truths exist. "Truth" can only be known by the mind. In order for us to suppose that we "know" rather than "believe" something to be true, we presuppose an abstract, invariant, and universal mind. It must be a mind because abstracts can only be known by interaction with the mind. Otherwise it seems that we have no reason to trust that our senses are reliable.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2015 5:16:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/19/2015 4:37:01 PM, Iredia wrote:
At 6/19/2015 2:26:55 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
I think that all reasonable evidences for intelligent creation have already failed, Jane.
No, they haven't. The only thing that would make you think so is a materialist bias. Or maybe ignorance as to the arguments of creationists, ID in particular.

Hi Iredia.

The world started with a theistic bias, and science started with theistic assumptions. Science has moved away from that not because they wanted to, but because theistic claims just kept proving false.

Theists are still catching up.

The lack of intelligence behind evolution for example, is visible in the pace of species development, and the number of extinctions, and the evidence for abiogenesis is abundant and mounting.
The evidence of abiogenesis is poor because it routinely fails to consider adverse factors and natural conditions in which life precursors supposedly started.
The people saying that aren't scientists.

As extinctions and the pace of species development go it is most clear that they contradict the idea that natural selection accounts for common ancestry.
The people saying that aren't biologists.

Various stages of the Big Bang -- like the separation of matter from antimatter -- are inefficient and therefore unlikely to point to an engineered universe either.
One question on the Big Bang. Was the singularity from which the Big Bang started material in nature ?

Even if the Big Bang arose from forces outside our material universe (which it might), that doesn't point to intelligence Iredia -- just multiple instances of material reality.

Moreover, suppose we found a way to engineer a universe ourselves, and we could see evidence that our universe were the product of a similar operation, that would not be evidence for a deity -- just a process. So hunting for evidence of a creator is not a path to theism -- it's at best a path to Deism.

We can never engineer the universe.
That would depend on what it takes to do so.

I do believe most arguments for God point to a deistic God
A deistic creator may as well not be called God, because it only confuses people.

We have ample evidence to show that delusion and deceit are better explanations for theism than actual contact, and some pretty strong cosmogenic and biogenic evidence that there's nothing worth trying to contact in the first place.
What is this ample evidence showing delusion and deceit explain theism ?
Start with a proliferation of diverse theological beliefs showing independent development of disparate and incompatible theism; the tendency of religions to schism and never reconcile; the tendency of people with demonstrably false religious beliefs (like cargo cultism) to continue believing them anyway, even faced with compelling contrary evidence.

All of that is evidence about the way humans minds and cultures work, and none of it is good evidence for any theistic belief being true.

I think theists could do a lot better thinking about how to maintain spirituality, cultural cohesion and social relevance in the absence of credible revelations and eschatological prophecies than desperately combing the cracks of science for crumbs of dying hope that their ignorant, ancient prophets -- while wrong about physics, astronomy, geology, history, medicine, biology, psychology, and meteorology -- were nevertheless right about metaphysics.

Religion was the means spirituality, cultural cohesion and social life began in the first place.

Spirituality preceded theism by tens of thousands of years. See indigineous Australian beliefs, for example -- highly spiritual but no gods.

Cultural cohesion likewise seems to have come from arts and spiritual practices, and does not require gods.

What gods give us, Iredia, is nationalism. That's not just cultural cohesion, but invented groupings for which people will fight and die.

You also are ignoring the fact that religions such as Buddhism and Confucianism lack the revelations or prophecies you speak of and in no way contradict science, at least, to my knowledge.
Limited knowledge, apparently. Buddhism is not theism although many sects of Buddhism have theistic beliefs, and multiple sects acknowledge the prospective existence of gods. I would class Buddhism as a religion though -- an anthropological category based on spiritual practices.

Some atheists like Buddhism; I personally don't. Could talk more on that later if desired.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2015 5:53:16 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
A bit of post-breakfast afterthought. The problem theism faces now is not just demonstrating the existence of metaphysical agencies wanting to talk to us (of which evidence they presently have none.)

It's also reconciling why, despite claiming the existence of beings so powerful they can do whatever they want yet nevertheless being so vain that the capering and screeching of apes will flatter them into offering special favours to the ones who do it precisely right, the finest minds on the planet working diligently across centuries with tools of inconceivable power and subtlety have nevertheless fail to identify the merest scrap of a whiff of their existence.

What have they been doing during the vulnerable millennia of human development? Have they been vacation?

Essentially, the longer we spend exploring the universe and not finding evidence of metaphysical interventions, the more theists have to account for -- when they've never even accounted for their initial claims.

I think the door has already closed on the foolish and ignorant claims of theism. Theists are just taking time to realise it.
Aurda1213
Posts: 2
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2015 6:02:43 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/19/2015 4:22:07 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 6/19/2015 3:58:08 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 6/19/2015 1:53:46 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
There are two ways to gain knowledge: empirically and rationally.

Empirically, it depends on what one considers to be proof. Inductive evidence of God includes teleology, objective morality, a first cause, NDE's of an afterlife, and the origin of specified-complex information in the first DNA molecule.

The only deductive (rational or based on pure reasoning) argument for God other than the ontological argument:

P1. God is a necessary precondition for knowledge.

P2. People know things (or some other statement pertaining to logic or morality).

C. Therefore God exists.

P1) Knowledge of P1 (of your argument) can only come from God or not god.

P2) If it is the case that it came from God then the argument begs the question.

P3) If it is the case that it came from not god, then the argument is self refuting.

C1) In either case the argument is flawed.

C2) It is not the case that knowledge requires god.


P1. A sculpter is a necessary precondition for a sculpture
P2. There is a sculpture
C. There is a sculpter.

There's nothing wrong with the way the argument is formulated.

Begging the question description: "Any form of argument where the conclusion is assumed in one of the premises"
http://www.logicallyfallacious.com...

If anything, the objection to the argument is with supporting P1.

We are the sculptor. God is the sculpture.
tejretics
Posts: 6,083
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2015 1:03:50 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/19/2015 1:53:46 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
There are two ways to gain knowledge: empirically and rationally.

Empirically, it depends on what one considers to be proof. Inductive evidence of God includes teleology, objective morality, a first cause, NDE's of an afterlife, and the origin of specified-complex information in the first DNA molecule.

The only deductive (rational or based on pure reasoning) argument for God other than the ontological argument:

P1. God is a necessary precondition for knowledge.

P2. People know things (or some other statement pertaining to logic or morality).

C. Therefore God exists.

Both P1 and P2 are questionable.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,598
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2015 11:47:10 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/19/2015 1:02:54 PM, janesix wrote:
What would you consider to be "proof" that there is an intelligent creator?

Anything that would show creation. Unfortunately, everything in nature shows it arose entirely on it's own through the natural laws and natural means. Absolutely nothing shows an intelligent creator existing.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2015 12:17:04 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/19/2015 1:02:54 PM, janesix wrote:
What would you consider to be "proof" that there is an intelligent creator?

I'm assuming this would be objective, verifiable proof,and not subjective experience.

I AM an intelligent creator.
Saint_of_Me
Posts: 2,402
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2015 12:21:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/19/2015 1:02:54 PM, janesix wrote:
What would you consider to be "proof" that there is an intelligent creator?

I'm assuming this would be objective, verifiable proof,and not subjective experience.

You are asking Atheist to prove the existence of a God?

Do you have your terms mixed-up. Or did you get hit in the head with a hammer this morning? LOL.

Or perhaps there is some sort of facetious bent to the OP that I am not quite comprehending?
Science Flies Us to the Moon. Religion Flies us Into Skyscrapers.
Saint_of_Me
Posts: 2,402
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2015 12:23:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/19/2015 1:53:46 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
There are two ways to gain knowledge: empirically and rationally.

Empirically, it depends on what one considers to be proof. Inductive evidence of God includes teleology, objective morality, a first cause, NDE's of an afterlife, and the origin of specified-complex information in the first DNA molecule.

The only deductive (rational or based on pure reasoning) argument for God other than the ontological argument:

P1. God is a necessary precondition for knowledge.

P2. People know things (or some other statement pertaining to logic or morality).

C. Therefore God exists.

LOL--I hope that is not the best you can do.

That argument is severely flawed from P1.

And then it just gets worse. LOL.

As the physicist Wolfgang Pauli once said about a student's paper: "This is so bad it isn't even wrong!"

LOL.

Drew.
Science Flies Us to the Moon. Religion Flies us Into Skyscrapers.
Iredia
Posts: 1,608
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2015 3:40:40 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/19/2015 5:16:00 PM, RuvDraba wrote:


Hi Iredia.

The world started with a theistic bias, and science started with theistic assumptions. Science has moved away from that not because they wanted to, but because theistic claims just kept proving false.

Theists are still catching up.

Actually, they've caught up.

The people saying that aren't scientists.

They don't have to be.

The people saying that aren't biologists.

The good thing about truth is that it isn't dependent on one's qualifications.


Even if the Big Bang arose from forces outside our material universe (which it might), that doesn't point to intelligence Iredia -- just multiple instances of material reality.

So you will preclude God as a cause just to preserve your stance. Hardly surprising.

That would depend on what it takes to do so.

We can't engineer the universe.

A deistic creator may as well not be called God, because it only confuses people.

It doesn't. A Creator God stripped of religious trappings is deistic. That isn't confusing.

Start with a proliferation of diverse theological beliefs showing independent development of disparate and incompatible theism; the tendency of religions to schism and never reconcile; the tendency of people with demonstrably false religious beliefs (like cargo cultism) to continue believing them anyway, even faced with compelling contrary evidence.

All of that is evidence about the way humans minds and cultures work, and none of it is good evidence for any theistic belief being true.

Touche, although some religions reconciled and some theistic beliefs are compatible.


Spirituality preceded theism by tens of thousands of years. See indigineous Australian beliefs, for example -- highly spiritual but no gods.

Doesn't apply to other ancient animistic beliefs.


Cultural cohesion likewise seems to have come from arts and spiritual practices, and does not require gods.

This is a desperate and wilful ignorance of the importance of religion to culture. The belief in gods was a crucial element of most ancient peoples and religions.


What gods give us, Iredia, is nationalism. That's not just cultural cohesion, but invented groupings for which people will fight and die.

You mean gods give us nationalism and cultural cohesion with it. If that's the case, I agree.
Porn babes be distracting me. Dudes be stealing me stuff. I'm all about the cash from now. I'm not playing Jesus anymore.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2015 6:26:17 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/21/2015 3:40:40 PM, Iredia wrote:
At 6/19/2015 5:16:00 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
Scattershot assertions elided
Is there a facet of our topic that you seek to discuss, Iredia, or would you just like me to know what your opinions are?

If it's the latter, please be assured that I do.

Moreover, if you're afraid to bring focus and insight to bear, and concentrate your posts on a key matter that you think is interesting and edifying, fear not! If you had any clarity or insight to offer I'd welcome it!

Of course, if you don't want to do that, but only wish to impress with scattergun-assertions, well, I promise you: I'm now as impressed as I shall ever be.
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2015 11:07:08 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/19/2015 4:56:48 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
I haven't used this argument much and don't know to what extent I agree with it, but it seems true. "Knowledge" presupposes that abstract, invariant, and universal truths exist.
Now I'm interested in your theory of truth.

"Truth" can only be known by the mind. In order for us to suppose that we "know" rather than "believe" something to be true, we presuppose an abstract, invariant, and universal mind.
Wait, how did you get from abstract and invariant truth entities that can only be known by a mind to the conclusion that we have to presuppose another mind than our own for knowledge?

It must be a mind because abstracts can only be known by interaction with the mind.
Otherwise it seems that we have no reason to trust that our senses are reliable.
Shall I pull out the pragmatist again?
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
inferno
Posts: 10,556
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2015 11:09:11 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/19/2015 1:02:54 PM, janesix wrote:
What would you consider to be "proof" that there is an intelligent creator?

I'm assuming this would be objective, verifiable proof,and not subjective experience.

Youre wasting your time if you are an Atheist.
JMcKinley
Posts: 314
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2015 1:05:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I'm assuming that we are talking about the Christian God. If this is the case, and if the Christian God is omnipotent as they claim, then that means that God knows exactly what it would take to convince me.

So all it would take is for God to show up and do that.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2015 2:06:33 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/19/2015 1:02:54 PM, janesix wrote:
What would you consider to be "proof" that there is an intelligent creator?

I'm assuming this would be objective, verifiable proof,and not subjective experience.

I would accept nothing short of seeing this being appear with my own eyes (in front of other humans who can corroborate my experience to the most minute detail) and an explanation of why up until that point detecting his/her/it existence was impossible and unimportant.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten