Forum Index            

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

Share

This isn't complicated. 2020 is a referendum on Trump.

The job of the Biden campaign is simple, and Trump is helping.
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 
Re: The day the sun danced in the sky.
February 21, 2015 06:31PM
Quote
tuk22
Can't have both Sam that cognitive dissonance is creeping up in that brain of yours...

Right now your belief we live in a world absent of God = the belief in the existence of fairies...

Your argument btw not mine...

I think you've got that wrong.

Shouldn't it be: the belief that we live in a world absent God = the belief that we live in a world absent fairies?

Material evidence is lacking for both the absence of God and for the absence of fairies. For that matter, material evidence is lacking for anything that is nonexistent. Nonexistence is always argued by inference. Today, unlike 500 years ago, there is no need to invoke gods and devils and fairies or any other imaginary beings to explain the world.
Re: The day the sun danced in the sky.
February 21, 2015 07:02PM
Quote
Sam Wrote:
Isle, Again with the fruit, lol. How about this? You tell me the difference between a godthing and a fairy and why I should believe one doesn't exist but not the other. Nevermind. I don't think you nonjudging judges are even capable much less willing to answer that even for yourselves.

Again, Sam you wouldn't tell me what you 'believed' with regard to the examples I gave you because you didn't have enough information to generate a belief. What is it so hard for you to admit this??? That's what those examples were for, to demonstrate in about the simplest way possible what underdetermined means and what it means not to believe something one way or the other which you seem to think no one can do.

I've already explained to you why I don't believe fairies exist and why the I consider the "godthing" underdetermined, that is, "not enough info to generate a belief one way or the other". Did you not read my earlier explanation, or did you simply not understand what I was talking about?

Quote

No evidence for a thing's existence is evidence enough for me to judge godthings probably do not exist. I don't need certainty as maybe you do. Not even close.

Simply ignoring the evidence and pretending it doesn't exist is just your way of attempting to rationalize your belief. You need to believe there is no evidence in order to justify your belief. If you acknowledge that their is evidence, then you'd need some other way to rationalize your belief.

According to theoretical physicists who champion string theory, there are ten dimensions. Do you believe the other six exist? Where are they? What must they be like? We understand four, three spatial and one time, Personally, I don't know (knowing is believing) if the other six exist because I don't have enough info or understanding of them to generate a belief, I'm agnostic with regard to string theory. I've had these dimensions explained through the use of metaphors and analogies in order to try and conceptualize them. But I don't believe they, the metaphors, literally exist any more than I believe the characters representing a "godthing", as Thorn calls them, literally exist. I have to have a pretty good idea and understanding of what it is I'm being asked in order to state whether I believe it exists or whether it does not exist. The info I have at present on both the "godthing" and other dimensions is, for me, insufficient to generate a belief. Perhaps your mind is quick to generate beliefs based on insufficient info, who knows? Or perhaps my brain is just a bit more skeptical when it comes to generating beliefs based on insufficient info.
Re: The day the sun danced in the sky.
February 21, 2015 09:54PM
I think you've got that wrong.

Of course you do you have been confused about this for years now.

Shouldn't it be: the belief that we live in a world absent God = the belief that we live in a world absent fairies?

That's your silly argument and I read that ridiculous example you gave earlier. There are an infinite amount of foundational beings that can be conceived to exist or no foundation for the universe. Then you try to add fairies and turtles... It's retarded.

God IS the foundation of the universe whatever it may be and rightfully so...

Material evidence is lacking for both the absence of God and for the absence of fairies.

And the absence of aliens and the absence of fairies. Yet you would never equate the two because they are wholly different unknown concepts. I'm surprised you and Sam are oblivious to this... There is no rational probability for or against metaphysical foundations. It's just not possible.

Today, unlike 500 years ago, there is no need to invoke gods and devils and fairies or any other imaginary beings to explain the world.

Need again? You don't own science; anyone can use it...

But you can argue against metaphysics. It would require to drop your ridiculous God does not exist belief and become agnostic...

Consistency matters. You and Sam have the exact same conflict and it's a pity you can't recognize it...
Re: The day the sun danced in the sky.
February 22, 2015 12:05AM
No, tuk. Pay attention, please. (Have you been diagnosed as ADD?) Read the words that I actually write, not what you assume I will write.

What I meant when I wrote "Shouldn't it be: the belief that we live in a world absent God = the belief that we live in a world absent fairies?" was that earlier you wrote that Sam's belief was: "the belief we live in a world absent of God = the belief in the existence of fairies..."

Didn't you mean to write: " . . . = the belief in the nonexistence of fairies"?
Re: The day the sun danced in the sky.
February 22, 2015 12:17AM
No I meant exactly what I wrote it's implied in her responses about metaphysics. Both of you try to destroy metaphysics by defending logical positivism: the primacy of science and logical truth while at the same time making your own special metaphysical claim... It's absurd.
Re: The day the sun danced in the sky.
February 22, 2015 10:02AM
Quote
tuk22
No I meant exactly what I wrote it's implied in her responses about metaphysics. Both of you try to destroy metaphysics by defending logical positivism: the primacy of science and logical truth while at the same time making your own special metaphysical claim... It's absurd.

OK, so you think Sam is saying that the belief in the nonexistence of God is equal to the belief in the existence of fairies? I don't think you've got that right, but whatever.

BTW, can you quote the metaphysical claim that you believe I'm making . . . just to make sure you've got that right?
Re: The day the sun danced in the sky.
February 22, 2015 10:09PM
No she didn't say it, I did. But it's implied in her responses to me. God exists and God doesn't exist are both metaphysical claims. Both are without a rational probability.
Sam
Re: The day the sun danced in the sky.
February 22, 2015 11:29PM
Unless you believe the absence of evidence is evidence of absence, which I do. If you don't, fine, stay on that fence. No one cares.
Re: The day the sun danced in the sky.
February 22, 2015 11:51PM
Yes, hold on tight to that and tell yourself everything is fine... eye rolling smiley
Sam
Re: The day the sun danced in the sky.
February 23, 2015 12:07AM
It is fine, tuk. Really. You don't need that godthing in your life, do you? lol
Re: The day the sun danced in the sky.
February 23, 2015 01:41AM
Sam, you're starting to sound silly basing your belief on your misunderstanding of evidence. winking smiley
Sam
Re: The day the sun danced in the sky.
February 23, 2015 02:34AM
Or your misunderstanding, Isle. winking smiley
Re: The day the sun danced in the sky.
February 24, 2015 12:28AM
Gotta love theists and crypto-theists who argue for the mere possibility of God's existence as if that needs argument, as if somehow, in some way, God's possible existence were significant.

The possibility that God exists actually should be less important to them than the miniscule probability that they're going to win the next powerball lottery (even if they don't buy a ticket!) but they don't understand that. If they did, they'd be so busy planning how they were going to spend their future winnings they wouldn't have time to argue about the significance of the possibility of God's existence on any discussion board.
Re: The day the sun danced in the sky.
February 24, 2015 12:55AM
I go by the standard and commonly used and understood definition/meaning of evidence! How do you define it, Sam, so that, in your own mind, it helps you to confirm your belief? winking smiley
Re: The day the sun danced in the sky.
February 24, 2015 01:40AM
Do any of the board agnostics believe that it's merely possible, not probable, but just possible that you'll win the next big lottery?

That's a rhetorical question. Of course you know that it's possible . . . just like you know it's possible that God exists, right!

So is this all you mean when you say it's possible that God exists? Do you mean that it's just as possible as it is that you'll win the next big lottery?

If this isn't the case, then please explain what the difference is.

[Please remember that we're talking only about possibilities here and not probabilities. I already know that it's very, very unlikely any one of us will win the next big lottery assuming that the next lottery will be run under pretty much the same rules lotteries have always used, so don't bring up probability.]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/24/2015 02:10AM by Dick.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Click here to login



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!