Forum Index            

Cookies Consent Information
SelectSmart.com®
Before you decide
Over 20,000 selectors

Join to post comments.
Share
Try These Selectors:
Best college values

Good jobs in gig economy

Right religion for you

Presidential candidates

Best US city for you

Know your philosophy

Landmark decisions
Is your name welcomed below? Then you can post here. Otherwise, click "Log In" to post!
Welcome! » Log In » Create A New Profile

The day the sun danced in the sky.

Posted by Dick 
Sam
Re: The day the sun danced in the sky.
February 25, 2015 04:44AM
So then someone says "no I saw islander wearing the same sweater. That sweater is evidence that islander was here." You are saying then that the sweater is evidence that I was there or evidence I was not there or evidence you were there or evidence you were not there. How is that definition of evidence useful? I think "indicates" means not that one of us might or might not have been there. I think "indicates" means this:


indicate [ˈindiˌkāt ]
VERB
1. point out; show:

"dotted lines indicate the text's margins"

synonyms: specify · designate · mark · stipulate · show

I don't see any "might" here either. Where are you getting all these mights? confused smiley
Re: The day the sun danced in the sky.
February 25, 2015 06:41AM
Islander wrote: It is, however, despite what you think, a fact that we have Lucia Santos' eyewitness testimony which suggests the existence of a "godthing". It simply doesn't support your claim that it is evidence suggesting the nonexistence of a "godthing". It suggests the opposite.

A 10-year-old saying that he saw a ghost is not much evidence for the existence of ghosts, but if you accept a more objective, rational view of the world, it is evidence that 10-year-old brains are highly suggestible. Same thing with the 10-year-old brain at Fatima. She didn't see an apparition of the Madonna (how would she know the real Madonna from a fake Madonna, anyway? how would you?) but she believed she did just like other children believe they see ghosts, monsters, witches and who knows what all else that get suggested to their impressionable young brains.

How some people in this day and age are able to believe, to really believe, that what someone else claims he saw, no matter how incredible the claim, is what was actually there in reality is truly mindbogglingly. You'd think cognitive psychology didn't exist.
Re: The day the sun danced in the sky.
February 25, 2015 02:33PM
Quote
Sam Wrote:
How is that definition of evidence useful?

That's why the sweater would be called circumstantial evidence. It's not proof that you were there, it's evidence that suggests that you might have been there, or if you like to goof around with semantics and prefer to say it 'indicates' you were there, that's cool, it means the same thing. Neither way of saying it means it is proof that you were indeed there. Most reasonable people, however, would say that your fingerprint on the porch rail would be proof you were there. That is, it would be evidence that convinces, or compels one to believe.

Circumstantial evidence can be useful because, as I said earlier, such evidence is cumulative, while no single piece would be proof, enough pieces of circumstantial evidence can add up to proof.
Re: The day the sun danced in the sky.
February 25, 2015 04:29PM
You're just not getting this evidence thing, Sam. See, if someone says that he saw God pull off a jacket and leave it on the staircase bannister then that is some evidence of God's existence. To our agnostic friends, this apparently is not evidence that the guy is mentally unstable or was hoodwinked or perhaps is playing a prank himself or is just flat out lying. It's evidence that God actually exists!

It's a real shame that some people have to resort to this sort of "evidence" to try to balance the evidentiary scales just so they can avoid saying, "No, I don't think God exists. Why should I? There's no solid evidence of any sort that God exists. There's no good argument that shows God exists. There's no longer even a need to supply the universe with a Creator. So why would anyone who's thought about it believe that God exists?"
Sam
Re: The day the sun danced in the sky.
February 25, 2015 04:33PM
Really? So billions of stories about personal experiences with godthings would add up to proof? Then why don't you proudly believe they exist?


It's not just goofy semantics. There's a big difference between "suggests you might have been there" and "indicates you were there". Big. Why can't you see that?
Re: The day the sun danced in the sky.
February 25, 2015 05:22PM
Quote
Sam Wrote:
Really? So billions of stories about personal experiences with godthings would add up to proof? Then why don't you proudly believe they exist?

Nope! That's simply a bit of nonsense you just made up. If I believed there was proof for the existence of "godthings", I'd believe "godthings" existed. Your thinking on this is muddled, and I suspect it's because you don't really know what we are arguing about. You continue to argue as if I believe in and am trying to prove the existence of a "godthing" or the likelihood of its existence. Which of course, is not the case.

Quote

It's not just goofy semantics. There's a big difference between "suggests you might have been there" and "indicates you were there". Big. Why can't you see that?

Your sweater draped over your neighbor's porch railing suggests you might have been there---

Your sweater draped over your neighbor's porch railing indicates you had been there---

Neither proves or demonstrates you were, in fact, there. The most that can be said about the fact of your sweater being draped over your neighbor's porch railing as being evidence that you were there, is that it suggests you might have been there. Saying "indicates" doesn't change that.

If you think (without getting into goofy semantics) there is a "Big" difference (which I don't) explain it to me.
Sam
Re: The day the sun danced in the sky.
February 25, 2015 06:19PM
If you can't recognize that the use of the word "indicates" shows a stronger more direct connection between cause and effect than the use of the words "suggests" and "might" do, then this conversation can go no further, lol. It was fun, tho.
Re: The day the sun danced in the sky.
February 26, 2015 12:45AM
Granted, I too thought was a lot a' fun and I'm happy to know you thought so too. smileys with beer Although the real conversation ended a while back, I have to say it was interesting to see how you connected your thoughts. For instance, it never would have occurred to me, that, when talking about circumstantial evidence (not proof), it's won't be evidence if you say a particular fact or situation suggests X might have been the case, one has to say that very same fact or situation indicates X is the case, because the word "indicates" gives the impression of a stronger more direct connection between cause and effect than the use of the words "suggests" and "might" do. If you remember to say "indicates" it then becomes evidence. Therefore, this shows how obvious it is that there is zero evidence to support the existence of a "godthing"! No wonder you believe the stuff you do! winking smiley If we'd kept this up you'd have had me converted in no time! thumbs up
Sam
Re: The day the sun danced in the sky.
February 26, 2015 04:45AM
Can't say it's so fun getting talked down to all the time but I believe what I do for reasons that make sense to me which I've tried my best to explain. If you are striving to be uberrationalman it's too bad you believe impossible things are possible but I guess it doesn't really matter because there is no consequence for your ardent belief that godthings Might exist. "Suggests X Might" exist is meaningless to me, btw. It demonstrates absolutely no connection between a certain cause and a certain effect. It's just an empty phrase for an empty concept. Poof!

This all said you agnogs are the least of my worries in this world. You do make things more difficult in the fight against religion, superstition and magical thinking, tho, so thx a lot for that, lol! Instead of guarding the fence between the godbelievers and nogodbelivers why don't you take this silly act on the road to church on sundays and give them a lesson in uberrationality? It would help the world a lot more than trying to convince me or any other strong atheist that you have anything meaningful to Suggest Might be true. Godthings are impossible to exist or haven't you heard? lol



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/26/2015 05:00AM by Sam.
Re: The day the sun danced in the sky.
February 26, 2015 06:09PM
Haha, tuk wants us to play his metagame knowing it is rigged. According to his favorite ancient philosophy we are irrational because we believe there is no god but not irrational for believing there is no fairy but he is irrational for believing his philosophy is meaningful, useful or reflects reality in any way, shape for form. He needs this one, tho. It's the only game where the only winner is the one who doesn't play. Tuk tries to drag atheists into the game so he can feel superior, lol, and then gets upset because we don't want to play by the rules that promise we will lose. Stupid gamers. What is the value of having a philosophy like that anyways? This ilk use science for every other question but reserve a special case philosophy for their favorite godthing so maybe, just maybe there's a way for this godthing to get some serious respect, lmao!

What a load of horse dung... Yeah, your internal inconsistency with your worldview is some kind of game I'm playing. The only thing I'm trying to do is to get both you and Dick to acknowledge you actually don't know that we live in a world absent of God.

You two are all over the place... One day you will say that it's true you don't know that, but the next day claim Gods existence is improbable and real probability is knowledge so that implies you do think you know...

You discredit metaphysics because it's not science and then imply materialism is true with your crappy arguments...

You can't even rationally account for your own conscience, but somehow have a strong grasp concerning the fundamental natures of reality as if your philosophy was proven true...

Skeptic one day, all knowing the next...

You could be a weak atheist like the vast majority of the atheists I know... That's the atheist that is just without belief in God. The atheist who does not further claim to know God does not exist. The atheist who only states there is no scientific need for God, but does not further think that scientific necessity is grounds for positive atheistic metaphysical beliefs...
Sam
Re: The day the sun danced in the sky.
February 26, 2015 08:15PM
Lol, I don't care what you think I am. I know gods are not real. So do you. Keep strokin' it...if you don't know enough about your own god that you believe possibly exists to be able to rule out self-contradiction then you cannot rationally say gods possibly exist. You have to use isle's fave word "might" possibly exist. Your belief that a godthing possibly exists is faithbased, lol. Oh, and you can't say just that it might exist either. You have to say it might possibly exist, lol. If you want to be rational that is which doesn't seem to be a worry for your campers.

Please, please tell me where I said this "One day you will say that it's true you don't know that, but the next day claim Gods existence is improbable and real probability is knowledge so that implies you do think you know...". I for one have never said it's true I don't know if gods exist.
Re: The day the sun danced in the sky.
February 26, 2015 08:39PM
.if you don't know enough about your own god that you believe possibly exists to be able to rule out self-contradiction then you cannot rationally say gods possibly exist

This is a hot mess fix it... I honestly have no idea what you are trying to say
Sam
Re: The day the sun danced in the sky.
February 26, 2015 08:54PM
if you don't know enough about your own god that you believe possibly exists to be able to rule out self-contradiction, then you cannot rationally say gods possibly exist
Re: The day the sun danced in the sky.
February 26, 2015 08:56PM
Any coherent definition of God is logically possible.
Sam
Re: The day the sun danced in the sky.
February 26, 2015 08:58PM
Let's hear one that ensures you can rule out that it's self-contradictory like the AbrahamicGod we all KNOW does not exist.
Re: The day the sun danced in the sky.
February 26, 2015 09:04PM
Sam anything that is logically impossible is meaningless. It's just not possible to comprehend. The Flying Spaghetti Monster is logically possible.
Sam
Re: The day the sun danced in the sky.
February 26, 2015 09:31PM
Do you know everything there is to know about FSM so that you can rule out that it's self-contradictory? If not, you cannot rationally say that it is logically possible that it exists. Since you made it up out of thin air maybe you DO know enough about it to be able to say you know it is not self-contradictory and therefore you would be rational to say it possibly exists. DO you know enough about it to be able to say that?
Re: The day the sun danced in the sky.
February 26, 2015 10:37PM
If something makes sense it's logically possible. If sometime in the future evidence was available that contradicted the concept it would still be logically possible but nomologically impossible. If a concept changed from coherent to logically impossible that's just nonsense. Someone isn't thinking straight. Is it possible that some coherent concept can in the future be incoherent without change? No.
Sam
Re: The day the sun danced in the sky.
February 26, 2015 10:50PM
How do you know your godthing is not a married bachelor? If you don't or can't know, you cannot rationally say it is possible for it to exist.
Re: The day the sun danced in the sky.
February 26, 2015 11:03PM
Is it meaningful to ask that question?
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Click here to login


This forum powered by Phorum

Cookies Consent Policy & Privacy Statement. All Rights Reserved. SelectSmart® is a registered trademark. | Contact SelectSmart.com | Advertise on SelectSmart.com | This site is for sale!