Total Posts:103|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Looking the Abstract in a Concrete World

s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2015 8:09:25 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
The atheist demands proof for the existence of God. However, the theist fails to satisfy his, or her, demand. By the theist's failure to do so, the atheist sits assured and confident in his, or her, disbelief.

Nevertheless, in considering the atheist's demand for concrete proof, therein lies the problem: he, or she, is looking for something that's impossible to give. The atheist is looking for that which is abstract in a concrete world.

No atheist I know demands concrete proof for any other abstraction. I have never heard of anyone denying the existence of love for lack of physical evidence. There have been no instrumental measurements of peace. Happiness has never been demonstrated in a lab, and hope has never been seen under a microscope.

Yet, no one denies or lacks faith in these things. To most people, including atheists, they are very real and desirable things. Without them, life would be intolerable.

Just because something is abstract, immaterial, and beyond the physical world does not in anyway prove its nonexistence. It exists in our minds and hearts, in the mystery and wonder of our souls.
Impartial
Posts: 375
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2015 11:46:31 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/20/2015 8:09:25 AM, s-anthony wrote:
The atheist demands proof for the existence of God. However, the theist fails to satisfy his, or her, demand. By the theist's failure to do so, the atheist sits assured and confident in his, or her, disbelief.

The theist's failure to prove god's existance is to be expected. The atheist therefore remains pesimistic about the theist's belief while not needing to believe the opposite.

Nevertheless, in considering the atheist's demand for concrete proof, therein lies the problem: he, or she, is looking for something that's impossible to give. The atheist is looking for that which is abstract in a concrete world.

If it's impossible to provide proof, the theist needs to accept that their opinion about a god is just that, an opinon.

No atheist I know demands concrete proof for any other abstraction. I have never heard of anyone denying the existence of love for lack of physical evidence. There have been no instrumental measurements of peace. Happiness has never been demonstrated in a lab, and hope has never been seen under a microscope.

All of these things are subjective and not objective claims.

Yet, no one denies or lacks faith in these things. To most people, including atheists, they are very real and desirable things. Without them, life would be intolerable.

Sure, but they are still subjective, unlike the objective claim that a god exists.

Just because something is abstract, immaterial, and beyond the physical world does not in anyway prove its nonexistence.

I agree. Just as I agree with the opposite.

It exists in our minds and hearts, in the mystery and wonder of our souls.

Sure, the feeling of a god may exist, but that bears no relevance to the actual existance of a deity.
To believe is to know nothing.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2015 1:39:17 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
sure, but they are still subjective, unlike the objective claim that a god exists.

Being subjective does not in anyway lessen the relevance for the believer. Saying my grief over my father's death is personal does not lessen its significance to me. It is a psychological and emotional phenomenon that manifests itself in a very real way. So real is it, it has the capacity to change me, physiologically.

Do I expect anyone else to experience that which I'm experiencing...? No. However, to objectively and forcefully say my experience is not real is a very arrogant supposition. It may not be real physically speaking, but, to me, it's a very real abstraction.

The world of metaphysics is a very real world. That which is physical would not make sense, neither have meaning without it. To dismiss the metaphysical reality we all collectively and individually experience is to dismiss the world of ideas and emotions, the world of the psyche, the world of sentience. This organ we call brain may be the vehicle of consciousness but without the abstraction of thought it lies empty.
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2015 2:09:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/20/2015 8:09:25 AM, s-anthony wrote:
The atheist demands proof for the existence of God. However, the theist fails to satisfy his, or her, demand. By the theist's failure to do so, the atheist sits assured and confident in his, or her, disbelief.
Not to forget about the arguments against the existence of God.

Nevertheless, in considering the atheist's demand for concrete proof, therein lies the problem: he, or she, is looking for something that's impossible to give. The atheist is looking for that which is abstract in a concrete world.
What is an abstract/ concrete proof? Define your terms.

No atheist I know demands concrete proof for any other abstraction.
Like what? What is a concrete proof?

I have never heard of anyone denying the existence of love for lack of physical evidence.
Which might just be because we actually have physical evidence.
Does concrete proof mean the same as physical evidence?

There have been no instrumental measurements of peace.
What peace is or not is and whether we have it are question for politics and political philosophy. It's a matter of definition and not something we can measure even principle. This is a categorical mistake.

Happiness has never been demonstrated in a lab, and hope has never been seen under a microscope.
What are you talking about?

Yet, no one denies or lacks faith in these things. To most people, including atheists, they are very real and desirable things. Without them, life would be intolerable.
Yes, because they are physical going-ons of which we have empirical evidence.

Just because something is abstract, immaterial, and beyond the physical world does not in anyway prove its nonexistence.
God, most certainly, is not abstract. Under one of the most common understanding of abstracta, they are causally inert, God supposedly is not.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,652
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2015 2:42:30 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/20/2015 8:09:25 AM, s-anthony wrote:
The atheist demands proof for the existence of God. However, the theist fails to satisfy his, or her, demand. By the theist's failure to do so, the atheist sits assured and confident in his, or her, disbelief.

Nevertheless, in considering the atheist's demand for concrete proof, therein lies the problem: he, or she, is looking for something that's impossible to give. The atheist is looking for that which is abstract in a concrete world.

Sorry, but there are many abstract ideas and concepts in a "concrete world', but for some strange reason, you still don't simply refer to it for what it is; reality.

No atheist I know demands concrete proof for any other abstraction. I have never heard of anyone denying the existence of love for lack of physical evidence. There have been no instrumental measurements of peace. Happiness has never been demonstrated in a lab, and hope has never been seen under a microscope.

It would appear you fail to understand those are all physical properties that can indeed be measured, hence not only are they fallacies, they're false premises, as well.

Yet, no one denies or lacks faith in these things. To most people, including atheists, they are very real and desirable things. Without them, life would be intolerable.

One does not need faith, once can simple understand, but you seem to fail at that.

Just because something is abstract, immaterial, and beyond the physical world does not in anyway prove its nonexistence. It exists in our minds and hearts, in the mystery and wonder of our souls.

Immaterial = non=existent. Beyond the physical world? That would be non-existent. Souls have never been shown to exist, there is no mystery.

I think you really need get a handle on your terms, stop using fallacies and get more of an education as to what reality is all about.
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
Impartial
Posts: 375
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2015 2:58:31 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/20/2015 1:39:17 PM, s-anthony wrote:
sure, but they are still subjective, unlike the objective claim that a god exists.

Being subjective does not in anyway lessen the relevance for the believer. Saying my grief over my father's death is personal does not lessen its significance to me. It is a psychological and emotional phenomenon that manifests itself in a very real way. So real is it, it has the capacity to change me, physiologically.

I agree.

Do I expect anyone else to experience that which I'm experiencing...? No.

I agree.

However, to objectively and forcefully say my experience is not real is a very arrogant supposition. It may not be real physically speaking, but, to me, it's a very real abstraction.

Well no, the feelings are themselves objective because the impact they have on the brain can be measured so they are real. But what I am saying is that whatever causes those feelings can only be characterised subjectively because people can have different experiences and feelings of the same and similar events.

The world of metaphysics is a very real world. That which is physical would not make sense, neither have meaning without it. To dismiss the metaphysical reality we all collectively and individually experience is to dismiss the world of ideas and emotions, the world of the psyche, the world of sentience. This organ we call brain may be the vehicle of consciousness but without the abstraction of thought it lies empty.
To believe is to know nothing.
PureX
Posts: 1,533
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2015 3:45:05 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/20/2015 8:09:25 AM, s-anthony wrote:
The atheist demands proof for the existence of God. However, the theist fails to satisfy his, or her, demand. By the theist's failure to do so, the atheist sits assured and confident in his, or her, disbelief.

Nevertheless, in considering the atheist's demand for concrete proof, therein lies the problem: he, or she, is looking for something that's impossible to give. The atheist is looking for that which is abstract in a concrete world.

No atheist I know demands concrete proof for any other abstraction. I have never heard of anyone denying the existence of love for lack of physical evidence. There have been no instrumental measurements of peace. Happiness has never been demonstrated in a lab, and hope has never been seen under a microscope.

Yet, no one denies or lacks faith in these things. To most people, including atheists, they are very real and desirable things. Without them, life would be intolerable.

Just because something is abstract, immaterial, and beyond the physical world does not in anyway prove its nonexistence. It exists in our minds and hearts, in the mystery and wonder of our souls.

An excellent post, and all quite true. I predict, however, that as most atheists are exactly as willfully ignorant and dogmatically entrenched as the religious fundamentalists that they constantly disparage, they will not be able to recognize or acknowledge your point. And they will instead hurl mindless insults and irrelevant exaggerations in an effort to drive the focus off your point. Because that's 'just how they roll'.
PureX
Posts: 1,533
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2015 3:52:09 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/20/2015 2:58:31 PM, Impartial wrote:

Well no, the feelings are themselves objective because the impact they have on the brain can be measured so they are real. But what I am saying is that whatever causes those feelings can only be characterised subjectively because people can have different experiences and feelings of the same and similar events.

Every idea has a corresponding physical footprint in the brain. And yes, in that sense, everything we think is "subjective". But this being the case, then "God" is as real as love, or beauty, or justice. Point being that subjective experience and conceptualization does not mean; "unreal", or "invalid". As the atheist's argument always assumes.
Hitchian
Posts: 764
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2015 4:10:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/20/2015 8:09:25 AM, s-anthony wrote:
The atheist demands proof for the existence of God. However, the theist fails to satisfy his, or her, demand. By the theist's failure to do so, the atheist sits assured and confident in his, or her, disbelief.

Nevertheless, in considering the atheist's demand for concrete proof, therein lies the problem: he, or she, is looking for something that's impossible to give. The atheist is looking for that which is abstract in a concrete world.

No atheist I know demands concrete proof for any other abstraction. I have never heard of anyone denying the existence of love for lack of physical evidence. There have been no instrumental measurements of peace. Happiness has never been demonstrated in a lab, and hope has never been seen under a microscope.

Yet, no one denies or lacks faith in these things. To most people, including atheists, they are very real and desirable things. Without them, life would be intolerable.

Just because something is abstract, immaterial, and beyond the physical world does not in anyway prove its nonexistence. It exists in our minds and hearts, in the mystery and wonder of our souls.

That's a complete misrepresentation.

Love is not abstract. It is a concrete feeling most if not all humans have experienced in their minds and bodies one way or the other. No faith required.

Topological algebra, Descriptive geometry, now those are indeed abstract and fields where the notion of absolute proof can at least be entertained. God either is or He is not. If He is and manifests Himself in this world then He is real and concrete and attestable. Only Ideas are abstract.

You have neither absolute proof nor proof of any kind for God, not as an idea and even less as reality. I have a vivid image of hovering pink elephant with three snouts. Tell me, is it real?
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,652
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2015 4:19:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/20/2015 3:52:09 PM, PureX wrote:
At 9/20/2015 2:58:31 PM, Impartial wrote:

Well no, the feelings are themselves objective because the impact they have on the brain can be measured so they are real. But what I am saying is that whatever causes those feelings can only be characterised subjectively because people can have different experiences and feelings of the same and similar events.

Every idea has a corresponding physical footprint in the brain. And yes, in that sense, everything we think is "subjective". But this being the case, then "God" is as real as love, or beauty, or justice. Point being that subjective experience and conceptualization does not mean; "unreal", or "invalid". As the atheist's argument always assumes.

Reality is objective, and whatever subjective idea one formulates in the brain will either align with the objective or not. God does not align with the objective, whereas gravity, for example, most certainly does.

Are you able to comprehend this difference?
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
Impartial
Posts: 375
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2015 4:27:04 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/20/2015 3:52:09 PM, PureX wrote:
At 9/20/2015 2:58:31 PM, Impartial wrote:

Well no, the feelings are themselves objective because the impact they have on the brain can be measured so they are real. But what I am saying is that whatever causes those feelings can only be characterised subjectively because people can have different experiences and feelings of the same and similar events.

Every idea has a corresponding physical footprint in the brain. And yes, in that sense, everything we think is "subjective". But this being the case, then "God" is as real as love, or beauty, or justice. Point being that subjective experience and conceptualization does not mean; "unreal", or "invalid". As the atheist's argument always assumes.

A warm, fuzzy feeling didn't create the universe. I'm not trying to disprove the existance of a deity, that's idiotic. Belief in a god is subjective but that should be enough for theists without trying to impose that opinion on others as though it's a good opinion, despite having NO evidence in support of it. When belief in a god is rightly treated as an idea, it then becomes very weak indeed.
To believe is to know nothing.
PureX
Posts: 1,533
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2015 7:07:04 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/20/2015 4:19:46 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 9/20/2015 3:52:09 PM, PureX wrote:
At 9/20/2015 2:58:31 PM, Impartial wrote:

Well no, the feelings are themselves objective because the impact they have on the brain can be measured so they are real. But what I am saying is that whatever causes those feelings can only be characterised subjectively because people can have different experiences and feelings of the same and similar events.

Every idea has a corresponding physical footprint in the brain. And yes, in that sense, everything we think is "subjective". But this being the case, then "God" is as real as love, or beauty, or justice. Point being that subjective experience and conceptualization does not mean; "unreal", or "invalid". As the atheist's argument always assumes.

Reality is objective, and whatever subjective idea one formulates in the brain will either align with the objective or not. God does not align with the objective, whereas gravity, for example, most certainly does.

Are you able to comprehend this difference?

Are you able to comprehend that love is a real experience, just like concrete is a real experience, or quantity (mathematics) is a real experience, or God is a real experience?
And do you understand that our experience of reality is a part of reality? So that to claim that unexperienced (objective) reality is somehow more "real" than experienced (subjective) reality, is nonsense?
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,652
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2015 7:11:03 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/20/2015 7:07:04 PM, PureX wrote:
At 9/20/2015 4:19:46 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 9/20/2015 3:52:09 PM, PureX wrote:
At 9/20/2015 2:58:31 PM, Impartial wrote:

Well no, the feelings are themselves objective because the impact they have on the brain can be measured so they are real. But what I am saying is that whatever causes those feelings can only be characterised subjectively because people can have different experiences and feelings of the same and similar events.

Every idea has a corresponding physical footprint in the brain. And yes, in that sense, everything we think is "subjective". But this being the case, then "God" is as real as love, or beauty, or justice. Point being that subjective experience and conceptualization does not mean; "unreal", or "invalid". As the atheist's argument always assumes.

Reality is objective, and whatever subjective idea one formulates in the brain will either align with the objective or not. God does not align with the objective, whereas gravity, for example, most certainly does.

Are you able to comprehend this difference?

Are you able to comprehend that love is a real experience, just like concrete is a real experience, or quantity (mathematics) is a real experience, or God is a real experience?

If God was a real experience, why then are there just a tiny minority who have that experience, and why is it that their experiences are indistinguishable from delusions and mental disorders?

And do you understand that our experience of reality is a part of reality?

If your experience was part of reality, such as gravity is, why then do only a tiny group experience that reality?

So that to claim that unexperienced (objective) reality is somehow more "real" than experienced (subjective) reality, is nonsense?

What is nonsense is those who claim to have experiences that others do not and then call it reality.
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
Hitchian
Posts: 764
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2015 7:18:15 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/20/2015 7:07:04 PM, PureX wrote:
At 9/20/2015 4:19:46 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 9/20/2015 3:52:09 PM, PureX wrote:
At 9/20/2015 2:58:31 PM, Impartial wrote:

Well no, the feelings are themselves objective because the impact they have on the brain can be measured so they are real. But what I am saying is that whatever causes those feelings can only be characterised subjectively because people can have different experiences and feelings of the same and similar events.

Every idea has a corresponding physical footprint in the brain. And yes, in that sense, everything we think is "subjective". But this being the case, then "God" is as real as love, or beauty, or justice. Point being that subjective experience and conceptualization does not mean; "unreal", or "invalid". As the atheist's argument always assumes.

Reality is objective, and whatever subjective idea one formulates in the brain will either align with the objective or not. God does not align with the objective, whereas gravity, for example, most certainly does.

Are you able to comprehend this difference?

Are you able to comprehend that love is a real experience, just like concrete is a real experience, or quantity (mathematics) is a real experience, or God is a real experience?
And do you understand that our experience of reality is a part of reality? So that to claim that unexperienced (objective) reality is somehow more "real" than experienced (subjective) reality, is nonsense?

Ah, you did not get it.

Love is a real experience. Faith is a real experience. You really feel feelings. They are real, a brain scan might detect them, a blood test might verify them.

The warm fuzzy feeling you feel is real. The meaning you ascribe to that warm fuzzy feeling is subjective. If you want to assert it corresponds to an interaction with the all-powerful creator of the Universe, provide proof that can be verified by people who obviously are unable to feel your feelings.

Mathematics is not an experience. Solving math problems is.

You keep conflating that which is easy to discriminate.
PureX
Posts: 1,533
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2015 7:23:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/20/2015 4:27:04 PM, Impartial wrote:
At 9/20/2015 3:52:09 PM, PureX wrote:
At 9/20/2015 2:58:31 PM, Impartial wrote:

Well no, the feelings are themselves objective because the impact they have on the brain can be measured so they are real. But what I am saying is that whatever causes those feelings can only be characterised subjectively because people can have different experiences and feelings of the same and similar events.

Every idea has a corresponding physical footprint in the brain. And yes, in that sense, everything we think is "subjective". But this being the case, then "God" is as real as love, or beauty, or justice. Point being that subjective experience and conceptualization does not mean; "unreal", or "invalid". As the atheist's argument always assumes.

A warm, fuzzy feeling didn't create the universe.

Well, actually, you have no idea what did or did not crate the universe. So this is just a blind assertion intended to insult the beliefs of others, based on nothing but your own ego. Isn't it?

I'm not trying to disprove the existance of a deity, that's idiotic.

Of course your weren't, because you can't. Yet you make these insulting proclamations as if you can, and do, know what didn't create the universe. Why is that?

Belief in a god is subjective but that should be enough for theists without trying to impose that opinion on others as though it's a good opinion, "

And yet you just felt obliged to impose your opinions on the rest of us about what could not have created the universe, based on nothing but your own ego. So why is this OK for you to do, but not for them?

" despite having NO evidence in support of it. When belief in a god is rightly treated as an idea, it then becomes very weak indeed.

Where is your evidence to support the opinion that "a warm fuzzy feeling didn't create the universe"? You don't have any, which is "very weak indeed". And yet you seem to feel it was OK for you to impose this opinion of all of us.

So how are you any different from any theists who does the same?
PureX
Posts: 1,533
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2015 7:33:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/20/2015 7:11:03 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 9/20/2015 7:07:04 PM, PureX wrote:
At 9/20/2015 4:19:46 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 9/20/2015 3:52:09 PM, PureX wrote:
At 9/20/2015 2:58:31 PM, Impartial wrote:

Well no, the feelings are themselves objective because the impact they have on the brain can be measured so they are real. But what I am saying is that whatever causes those feelings can only be characterised subjectively because people can have different experiences and feelings of the same and similar events.

Every idea has a corresponding physical footprint in the brain. And yes, in that sense, everything we think is "subjective". But this being the case, then "God" is as real as love, or beauty, or justice. Point being that subjective experience and conceptualization does not mean; "unreal", or "invalid". As the atheist's argument always assumes.

Reality is objective, and whatever subjective idea one formulates in the brain will either align with the objective or not. God does not align with the objective, whereas gravity, for example, most certainly does.

Are you able to comprehend this difference?

Are you able to comprehend that love is a real experience, just like concrete is a real experience, or quantity (mathematics) is a real experience, or God is a real experience?

If God was a real experience, why then are there just a tiny minority who have that experience, and why is it that their experiences are indistinguishable from delusions and mental disorders?

The vast majority of human beings throughout the history of humanity have believed in the existence of gods, and have experienced that belief as part of their reality. Atheists, on the other hand, are very rare among humans.

And do you understand that our experience of reality is a part of reality?

If your experience was part of reality, such as gravity is, why then do only a tiny group experience that reality?

You seem to be confused about who is in this "tiny group".

So that to claim that unexperienced (objective) reality is somehow more "real" than experienced (subjective) reality, is nonsense?

What is nonsense is those who claim to have experiences that others do not and then call it reality.

Different people experience different aspects of reality all the time. And different people experience reality in different ways, too. This is not unusual. And you are not the yardstick for what experiences are or are not "real". How have you not learned this, yet?
Hitchian
Posts: 764
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2015 7:33:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/20/2015 7:23:25 PM, PureX wrote:

A warm, fuzzy feeling didn't create the universe.

Well, actually, you have no idea what did or did not crate the universe. So this is just a blind assertion intended to insult the beliefs of others, based on nothing but your own ego. Isn't it?


No quite. To the best of our knowledge, only human beings, primates, mammals, etc., feel feelings. It makes no sense for the creator to be the creature.

I'm not trying to disprove the existance of a deity, that's idiotic.

Of course your weren't, because you can't. Yet you make these insulting proclamations as if you can, and do, know what didn't create the universe. Why is that?


Of course anyone can try to disprove the existence of God. Whether he'll succeed or not, that's another issue.

Belief in a god is subjective but that should be enough for theists without trying to impose that opinion on others as though it's a good opinion, "

And yet you just felt obliged to impose your opinions on the rest of us about what could not have created the universe, based on nothing but your own ego. So why is this OK for you to do, but not for them?


Debating doesn't qualify as imposing.

" despite having NO evidence in support of it. When belief in a god is rightly treated as an idea, it then becomes very weak indeed.

Where is your evidence to support the opinion that "a warm fuzzy feeling didn't create the universe"?

Already answered.

You don't have any, which is "very weak indeed". And yet you seem to feel it was OK for you to impose this opinion of all of us.

So how are you any different from any theists who does the same?

Who's "us"? Whom do you represent? How many of "you" are there?
Speak for yourself. Do not attempt to leverage you point by somehow suggesting your views have been endorsed by a nebulous unspecified number of people. It never works.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,652
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2015 7:42:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/20/2015 7:33:28 PM, PureX wrote:
At 9/20/2015 7:11:03 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 9/20/2015 7:07:04 PM, PureX wrote:
At 9/20/2015 4:19:46 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 9/20/2015 3:52:09 PM, PureX wrote:
At 9/20/2015 2:58:31 PM, Impartial wrote:

Well no, the feelings are themselves objective because the impact they have on the brain can be measured so they are real. But what I am saying is that whatever causes those feelings can only be characterised subjectively because people can have different experiences and feelings of the same and similar events.

Every idea has a corresponding physical footprint in the brain. And yes, in that sense, everything we think is "subjective". But this being the case, then "God" is as real as love, or beauty, or justice. Point being that subjective experience and conceptualization does not mean; "unreal", or "invalid". As the atheist's argument always assumes.

Reality is objective, and whatever subjective idea one formulates in the brain will either align with the objective or not. God does not align with the objective, whereas gravity, for example, most certainly does.

Are you able to comprehend this difference?

Are you able to comprehend that love is a real experience, just like concrete is a real experience, or quantity (mathematics) is a real experience, or God is a real experience?

If God was a real experience, why then are there just a tiny minority who have that experience, and why is it that their experiences are indistinguishable from delusions and mental disorders?

The vast majority of human beings throughout the history of humanity have believed in the existence of gods,

Appeal to Popularity fallacy.

and have experienced that belief as part of their reality.

Pure speculation, you have absolutely no evidence whatsoever to support that claim.

So far, fallacies and speculation and you didn't answer the question.

Atheists, on the other hand, are very rare among humans.

Strawman fallacy.

And do you understand that our experience of reality is a part of reality?

If your experience was part of reality, such as gravity is, why then do only a tiny group experience that reality?

You seem to be confused about who is in this "tiny group".

Again, you did not answer the question. The tiny group is obviously the group that shares your belief system and apparent delusions.

So that to claim that unexperienced (objective) reality is somehow more "real" than experienced (subjective) reality, is nonsense?

What is nonsense is those who claim to have experiences that others do not and then call it reality.

Different people experience different aspects of reality all the time.

No, they don't, we all share the same reality and experience equally. Are there some who are not affected by gravity, for example

And different people experience reality in different ways, too.

No, they don't, we all experience reality exactly the same way.;

This is not unusual. And you are not the yardstick for what experiences are or are not "real".

The yardstick is reality and it has not shown any gods whatsoever.

But hey, I knew you couldn't honestly and truthfully answer my questions.

How have you not learned this, yet?
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
PureX
Posts: 1,533
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2015 7:47:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/20/2015 7:18:15 PM, Hitchian wrote:

Love is a real experience. Faith is a real experience. You really feel feelings. They are real, a brain scan might detect them, a blood test might verify them.

The warm fuzzy feeling you feel is real. The meaning you ascribe to that warm fuzzy feeling is subjective. If you want to assert it corresponds to an interaction with the all-powerful creator of the Universe, provide proof that can be verified by people who obviously are unable to feel your feelings.

Because the meaning we ascribe to our experience of being ourselves, is subjective, it can't be "proven" to you or anyone else. And there's no reason it should need to be. How do you "prove" you love someone? How do you "prove" that something is beautiful? How do you "prove" that something us just? You can't.

But that doesn't make love, or beauty, or justice a delusion. Nor does it make it "unreal". Our experience of beauty is just as real as our experience of gravity. And so is the experience of "God", for those to whom the experience occurs.

Mathematics is not an experience. Solving math problems is.

Quantification is the experience. Math is the language we use to define it.

You keep conflating that which is easy to discriminate.

You keep trying to discriminate between phenomena and our experience/perception of phenomena. But unexperienced and unperceived phenomena is just unexperienced and unperceived phenomena. It's not the essence of truth, or reality, as atheists keep trying to insist. An unexperienced, unperceived universe is meaningless.
Hitchian
Posts: 764
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2015 8:00:33 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/20/2015 7:47:37 PM, PureX wrote:
At 9/20/2015 7:18:15 PM, Hitchian wrote:

Love is a real experience. Faith is a real experience. You really feel feelings. They are real, a brain scan might detect them, a blood test might verify them.

The warm fuzzy feeling you feel is real. The meaning you ascribe to that warm fuzzy feeling is subjective. If you want to assert it corresponds to an interaction with the all-powerful creator of the Universe, provide proof that can be verified by people who obviously are unable to feel your feelings.

Because the meaning we ascribe to our experience of being ourselves, is subjective, it can't be "proven" to you or anyone else. And there's no reason it should need to be. How do you "prove" you love someone? How do you "prove" that something is beautiful? How do you "prove" that something us just? You can't.


Love is obviously demonstrable. There are tokens of love.

But that doesn't make love, or beauty, or justice a delusion. Nor does it make it "unreal". Our experience of beauty is just as real as our experience of gravity. And so is the experience of "God", for those to whom the experience occurs.


I didn't claim that it did.
In this regard equating God with gravity or even beauty is just silly. We have a predictive model for gravity. None for God. I'd venture to say we have a very good understanding of Beauty, but that's a discussion for another forum.

Mathematics is not an experience. Solving math problems is.

Quantification is the experience. Math is the language we use to define it.

No quibbles.

You keep conflating that which is easy to discriminate.

You keep trying to discriminate between phenomena and our experience/perception of phenomena. But unexperienced and unperceived phenomena is just unexperienced and unperceived phenomena. It's not the essence of truth, or reality, as atheists keep trying to insist. An unexperienced, unperceived universe is meaningless.

What's the difference between unperceived unexperienced phenomena and non-existing phenomena, for all intents and purposes?

You have a warm fuzzy feeling that you interpret to mean you're in contact with God Almighty. I can't feel your feelings so I won't dispute them. Fine. Say I have a warm fuzzy feeling the Universe is a purposeless godless materialistic place. You can't feel my feelings so you'll do me the justice of not disputing the fact I feel them.

How do you propose we get out of this conundrum?
Impartial
Posts: 375
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2015 8:23:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/20/2015 7:23:25 PM, PureX wrote:
At 9/20/2015 4:27:04 PM, Impartial wrote:
At 9/20/2015 3:52:09 PM, PureX wrote:
At 9/20/2015 2:58:31 PM, Impartial wrote:

Well no, the feelings are themselves objective because the impact they have on the brain can be measured so they are real. But what I am saying is that whatever causes those feelings can only be characterised subjectively because people can have different experiences and feelings of the same and similar events.

Every idea has a corresponding physical footprint in the brain. And yes, in that sense, everything we think is "subjective". But this being the case, then "God" is as real as love, or beauty, or justice. Point being that subjective experience and conceptualization does not mean; "unreal", or "invalid". As the atheist's argument always assumes.

A warm, fuzzy feeling didn't create the universe.

Well, actually, you have no idea what did or did not crate the universe.

True.

So this is just a blind assertion intended to insult the beliefs of others, based on nothing but your own ego. Isn't it?

Not quite. I'm insulted when I'm told by a theist that I'm destined for an eternity of pain and suffering because I'm not a believer. When I question a theist's opinion, I'm not being insulting, I'm having a debate. Is that alright?

I'm not trying to disprove the existance of a deity, that's idiotic.

Of course your weren't, because you can't. Yet you make these insulting proclamations as if you can, and do, know what didn't create the universe. Why is that?

If you read back you will find I did not say I know what did of didn't create the universe. This discussion, as I've said, is based on subjectivity. You appear to be getting very defensive. Why is that?

Belief in a god is subjective but that should be enough for theists without trying to impose that opinion on others as though it's a good opinion, "

And yet you just felt obliged to impose your opinions on the rest of us about what could not have created the universe, based on nothing but your own ego. So why is this OK for you to do, but not for them?

Imposed? 'Stated' would be more appropriate. Just as the theist states their opinion. Imposition is different.

" despite having NO evidence in support of it. When belief in a god is rightly treated as an idea, it then becomes very weak indeed.

Where is your evidence to support the opinion that "a warm fuzzy feeling didn't create the universe"?

What we're talking about here is the assumption that electrical signals in someones brain can somehow cause a supreme being to be created in the past, who then created the universe. And you think that idea is somehow on par with my opinion that that idea is stupid? The point is that opinions are open to criticism. The claim that a god exists is the first idea. The nontheist's critique of that idea can't be censored by you and it certainly isn't as valid simply because neither idea has more proof than the other.

You don't have any, which is "very weak indeed". And yet you seem to feel it was OK for you to impose this opinion of all of us.

You said 'impose' again. If I call you out on, what I think, is a daft idea, I'm not imposing my alternative opinion on you. It's what you call a debate. What makes you think you're immune to criticism?

So how are you any different from any theists who does the same?

Because my position doesn't begin with an arguably extraordinary claim about the creation of the universe without equally extraordinary evidence in support of it. I'm showing that I'm not convinced and yet that is somehow an imposition against what you consider the status quo. Way to shut down a debate. I can't say I'm all that impressed.
To believe is to know nothing.
itsnoone
Posts: 9
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2015 1:04:14 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/20/2015 8:09:25 AM, s-anthony wrote:
The atheist demands proof for the existence of God. However, the theist fails to satisfy his, or her, demand. By the theist's failure to do so, the atheist sits assured and confident in his, or her, disbelief.

Nevertheless, in considering the atheist's demand for concrete proof, therein lies the problem: he, or she, is looking for something that's impossible to give. The atheist is looking for that which is abstract in a concrete world.

No atheist I know demands concrete proof for any other abstraction. I have never heard of anyone denying the existence of love for lack of physical evidence. There have been no instrumental measurements of peace. Happiness has never been demonstrated in a lab, and hope has never been seen under a microscope.

Yet, no one denies or lacks faith in these things. To most people, including atheists, they are very real and desirable things. Without them, life would be intolerable.

Just because something is abstract, immaterial, and beyond the physical world does not in anyway prove its nonexistence. It exists in our minds and hearts, in the mystery and wonder of our souls. : :

Great post !!!! It took the wisdom of God to get these words written down.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2015 1:56:55 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
What is an abstract/ concrete proof? Define your terms.

"Abstract and concrete are classifications that denote whether a term describes an object with a physical referent or one with no physical referents." - Wikipedia

An abstract idea is an idea of something not found in the physical, or material world, such as love.

I have never heard of anyone denying the existence of love for lack of physical evidence.

Which might just be because we actually have physical evidence.
Does concrete proof mean the same as physical evidence?

What are the physical dimensions of love? What is its weight or mass? Which color is love? Is it red, blue, or green? Is love tall or short, thin or fat? Does love have density and viscosity?

Yet, no one denies or lacks faith in these things. To most people, including atheists, they are very real and desirable things. Without them, life would be intolerable.

Yes, because they are physical going-ons of which we have empirical evidence.

Show me on the periodic table the elemental composition of each of these abstractions. What is the molecular structure of peace? What are the physical dimensions of happiness? Do you weigh more being loving than you do being hateful? Which vehicle best administers contentment?

God, most certainly, is not abstract. Under one of the most common understanding of abstracta, they are causally inert, God supposedly is not.

So, being not an abstraction would this mean God is concrete, meaning an object found in the physical world?
bulproof
Posts: 25,308
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2015 2:10:46 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/20/2015 8:09:25 AM, s-anthony wrote:
The atheist demands proof for the existence of God. However, the theist fails to satisfy his, or her, demand. By the theist's failure to do so, the atheist sits assured and confident in his, or her, disbelief.
You have that backwards.
First is the claim.
Second comes the request for evidence of the claim.

Please continue.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,652
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2015 2:11:46 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/20/2015 7:47:37 PM, PureX wrote:
At 9/20/2015 7:18:15 PM, Hitchian wrote:

Love is a real experience. Faith is a real experience. You really feel feelings. They are real, a brain scan might detect them, a blood test might verify them.

The warm fuzzy feeling you feel is real. The meaning you ascribe to that warm fuzzy feeling is subjective. If you want to assert it corresponds to an interaction with the all-powerful creator of the Universe, provide proof that can be verified by people who obviously are unable to feel your feelings.

Because the meaning we ascribe to our experience of being ourselves, is subjective, it can't be "proven" to you or anyone else. And there's no reason it should need to be. How do you "prove" you love someone? How do you "prove" that something is beautiful? How do you "prove" that something us just? You can't.

But that doesn't make love, or beauty, or justice a delusion. Nor does it make it "unreal". Our experience of beauty is just as real as our experience of gravity. And so is the experience of "God", for those to whom the experience occurs.

Sorry, but not only is your argument riddled with fallacies, it isn't valid at all and I'm surprised you can't see that.

Love, beauty, justice and gravity are all things everyone on the planet can experience because they are all part of reality. Then, you make the grievous error of comparing that to a God experience, something only a small minority of people claim. Totally invalid.

Mathematics is not an experience. Solving math problems is.

Quantification is the experience. Math is the language we use to define it.

You keep conflating that which is easy to discriminate.

You keep trying to discriminate between phenomena and our experience/perception of phenomena. But unexperienced and unperceived phenomena is just unexperienced and unperceived phenomena. It's not the essence of truth, or reality, as atheists keep trying to insist. An unexperienced, unperceived universe is meaningless.
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
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2015 2:31:33 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Sorry, but there are many abstract ideas and concepts in a "concrete world', but for some strange reason, you still don't simply refer to it for what it is; reality.

Sorry, but according to Wikipedia, that which is abstract has no physical referent.

Reality is both concrete and abstract; for you, reality may be simply everything material and nothing more; however, that is to dismiss abstract concepts and ideas as nonexistent. Maybe, to you, these things are simply material. If so, what is the physical referent for love?

No atheist I know demands concrete proof for any other abstraction. I have never heard of anyone denying the existence of love for lack of physical evidence. There have been no instrumental measurements of peace. Happiness has never been demonstrated in a lab, and hope has never been seen under a microscope.

It would appear you fail to understand those are all physical properties that can indeed be measured, hence not only are they fallacies, they're false premises, as well.

Demonstrate, empirically, these physical properties.

Immaterial = non=existent. Beyond the physical world? That would be non-existent. Souls have never been shown to exist, there is no mystery.

If immaterial meant nonexistence, abstractions would then indeed be material because they clearly exist. However, if they were material, or physical, they would not be abstract but concrete; being concrete, by definition, they could not be called abstractions, meaning abstractions would not exist.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,652
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2015 2:39:19 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/21/2015 2:31:33 AM, s-anthony wrote:
Sorry, but there are many abstract ideas and concepts in a "concrete world', but for some strange reason, you still don't simply refer to it for what it is; reality.

Sorry, but according to Wikipedia, that which is abstract has no physical referent.

But, ideas and concepts are physical entities in our brains, they are the brain working, which are physical neurons firing.

Reality is both concrete and abstract; for you, reality may be simply everything material and nothing more; however, that is to dismiss abstract concepts and ideas as nonexistent. Maybe, to you, these things are simply material. If so, what is the physical referent for love?

That is an emotion in which physical biochemicals are released in our bodies.

No atheist I know demands concrete proof for any other abstraction. I have never heard of anyone denying the existence of love for lack of physical evidence. There have been no instrumental measurements of peace. Happiness has never been demonstrated in a lab, and hope has never been seen under a microscope.

It would appear you fail to understand those are all physical properties that can indeed be measured, hence not only are they fallacies, they're false premises, as well.

Demonstrate, empirically, these physical properties.

They are all the result of physical biochemicals released in our bodies from the stimulation of our senses.

Immaterial = non=existent. Beyond the physical world? That would be non-existent. Souls have never been shown to exist, there is no mystery.

If immaterial meant nonexistence, abstractions would then indeed be material because they clearly exist. However, if they were material, or physical, they would not be abstract but concrete; being concrete, by definition, they could not be called abstractions, meaning abstractions would not exist.

And that's fine, but none of it equates to the existence of any gods.
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
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2015 2:54:36 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/20/2015 8:09:25 AM, s-anthony wrote:
The atheist demands proof for the existence of God. However, the theist fails to satisfy his, or her, demand. By the theist's failure to do so, the atheist sits assured and confident in his, or her, disbelief.
Nevertheless, in considering the atheist's demand for concrete proof, therein lies the problem: he, or she, is looking for something that's impossible to give. The atheist is looking for that which is abstract in a concrete world.
No atheist I know demands concrete proof for any other abstraction.

You should examine your own claim more carefully.

The abstractions that most urgently need evidence are those that claim authority -- like the probity of government, for example. In particular, evidence providing assurance of both transparency and accountability.

Theology is lacking in both:
* Transparency: How can you be sure your beliefs arose the way you hope they did, and not some other way?
* Accountability: How do you make your claims to moral and/or intellectual authority accountable for the inevitable (and often egregious) ignorance and error of you and your fellow adherents?

A government that fails to be transparent and accountable should be replaced with one that is.

But a theology that evades transparency and accountability should be discarded, since an obscure, evasive religion does nothing of value in the first place.

Yours is an argument of special pleading, s-anthony: claiming authority over others without being accountable for anything you claim.

That's a corrupt and immoral practice, and why nobody who upholds integrity and critical thought should take theology seriously.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2015 2:59:10 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Well no, the feelings are themselves objective because the impact they have on the brain can be measured so they are real. But what I am saying is that whatever causes those feelings can only be characterised subjectively because people can have different experiences and feelings of the same and similar events.

If defining feelings as sense impressions, I would agree they are objective. However, saying the characterization of that which causes those feelings is subjective, I would have to disagree. The cause and effect are both objective realities. It is our interpretation of the phenomenal world which is subjective and abstract. In other words, not simply our characterizations of our feelings or the characterizations of the causes of those feelings but the interpretation of the interaction between cause and effect which is subjective and abstract.
bulproof
Posts: 25,308
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2015 3:45:13 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
First is the claim.
Second comes the request for evidence of the claim.

Please continue.