Forum Index            

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

Share

This isn't complicated. 2020 is a referendum on Trump.
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 18, 2015 03:48AM
Quote
tuk22
Dick,

Again, there is no evidence for metaphysical foundations. That is why it's nonsense to suggest it's improbable that God does not exist, because that implies you have evidence that we live in a world absent of God. You can't possibly know this. Yes, probability, real probability is knowledge.

I agree completely with Sam. There are many reasons to believe that the world in which we abide is without God.

Of course it's possible that a possibly existing god, even a god that is the foundation for being, exists in some world. No one that I know denies that. I know that you, like me, also know that it's just as possible that in some world the earth rests on the back of a tortoise. No one denies any of that. Whatever isn't a logical contradiction can exist in some world, right?

The question we want an answer to, however, is not what can exist in other possible worlds, but rather what exists in THIS world, in the world in which we find ourselves, and that means evidence. If there is no evidence for the existence of an entity in THIS world then there is no good reason to believe that that entity -- whether it's the ether or a tachyon or a god -- exists.

To answer this question -- the question: Does God exist in THIS world -- metaphysics is right next to useless. As you yourself point out, metaphysics deals with the possible, the impossible, and the necessary. So unless your aim is to prove, somehow, that God's existence is necessary (and much good luck with that) metaphysics and possible worlds theory really don't add much to a conversation that already concedes the possible existence of a possibly existing god.

No one is saying God cannot exist. We're only saying that God doesn't exist in THIS world as far as there is reason to believe.
Re: The day the sun danced in the sky.
February 18, 2015 04:03AM
Of course it's possible that a possibly existing god, even a god that is the foundation for being, exists in some world. No one that I know denies that. I know that you, like me, also know that it's just as possible that in some world the earth rests on the back of a tortoise. No one denies any of that. Whatever isn't a logical contradiction can exist in some world, right?

Why did you specify the 'something' as a tortoise? Was that necessary or simple? Why did you further assume that? I'm conceiving of the simplest metaphysical concept and here you are talking about turtles.

The question we want an answer to, however, is not what can exist in other possible worlds, but rather what exists in THIS world, in the world in which we find ourselves, and that means evidence. If there is no evidence for the existence of an entity in THIS world then there is no good reason to believe...

Ahh you referenced a turtle so you could once again deliver this canned response.

Seriously if metaphysics is meaningless to you STOP making metaphysical claims.

No one is saying God cannot exist. We're only saying that God doesn't exist in THIS world as far as there is reason to believe.

Like this... Please know you are contradicting yourself...
Re: The day the sun danced in the sky.
February 18, 2015 04:22AM
Why do you insist that the claim, "There appears to be no good reason to believe that a god exists in this world" is a metaphysical claim?

I mean, clearly, provably even, it's not a metaphysical claim. It's obviously an epistemic claim. The claim deals with belief and reasons for (or lack of reasons) for belief and those are epistemic subjects.

You can stamp your feet and scream "METAPHYSICAL! METAPHYSICAL! METAPHYSICAL!" until you're blue in the face but it won't change the nature of that claim from epistemological to metaphysical.
Re: The day the sun danced in the sky.
February 18, 2015 04:27AM
Dick wrote: No one is saying God cannot exist. We're only saying that God doesn't exist in THIS world as far as there is reason to believe. 

Tuk wrote: Please know you are contradicting yourself...

Dick writes: Please explicitly point out the contradiction because it is far from obvious to me.
Re: The day the sun danced in the sky.
February 18, 2015 04:34AM
Sure my patience isn't wearing thin at all...

Do we live in a world absent of God?

If yes, prove it. Prove that there is no eternal foundation that accounts for all reality...

If you don't know welcome to agnosticism
Sam
Re: The day the sun danced in the sky.
February 18, 2015 05:47AM
It's not irrelevant if there's no such thing as fairies, I mean, eternalfoundationalbeinggodnothings. You believe a god is the simplest explanation? Lol, only if you are simpleminded. Your CreatorGodthing would be the very definition of complex, wouldn't you think? Or do you think in real world terms at all?
Re: The day the sun danced in the sky.
February 18, 2015 06:21AM
Tuk, you didn't say that you disagreed with me or that some statement I made (IYO) was false. You said that I had contradicted myself. Do you know what a contradiction is? If so and if you still believe that I contradicted myself then either point out the contradiction or retract your claim, please.
Re: The day the sun danced in the sky.
February 18, 2015 06:33AM
I see you can't follow a logical discussion it's much easier for you to ignore questions, make stupid puns, and lol your way out of proving your beliefs...

No Sam, the simplest explanation isn't the most complicated explanation. Assuming God is the very definition of complex would be to have a very particular idea stuck in your head that is assuming much more than what I have defined... But when I ask you to tell me how you envision God all you can think of is a void, absolutely nothing...

For you God is impossible and improbable, too simple and too complex, @#$%& you are just throwing dung arguments at a wall to see what sticks aren't you?
Re: The day the sun danced in the sky.
February 18, 2015 06:36AM
Answer my questions Dick. Your responses will prove you hold contradictory beliefs...
Re: The day the sun danced in the sky.
February 18, 2015 06:50AM
Quote
tuk22
Sure my patience isn't wearing thin at all...

Do we live in a world absent of God?

If yes, prove it. Prove that there is no eternal foundation that accounts for all reality...

If you don't know welcome to agnosticism

I am an agnostic by some definitions of that word but I'm an atheist any way you look at it owing to my complete lack of belief in any god.

To your question . . . As I pointed out to you above, to justify a belief that an alleged entity exists, evidence of that entity's existence is necessary. An eternal universe is no more in need of a foundation than an eternal God, should one have existed, would be. The claim "The universe needs a foundation" would have merit only if the universe could be shown to be temporal, that is, that it had a beginning in time. Since there is no evidence to that effect and, worse for that claim, there now seems to be evidence against it, the claim can be safely dismissed.
Sam
Re: The day the sun danced in the sky.
February 18, 2015 06:55AM
tuk, You have no definition of the godthing you say is possibly existent Iwhich I'm guessing is why you think it's so simple?) but not only existent, right? The creator of the universe, right? And it's somehow a simple eternal foundational being that created the most complex things we can identify. How could a being create something that is more complex than itself? Reason tells me that's impossible. You are invoking a most complex entity to explain how and why it made the big bang go boom? Sounds an awful lot like the Xian goddidit stupidstition of your fellow godthingists. We don't need gods anymore so why keep the idea alive? Why do you encourage clinging to such immature imagery? No one wants to play the IntelligentDesigner game with you anymore.
Re: The day the sun danced in the sky.
February 18, 2015 07:35AM
So you are a weak atheist who has the positive belief that it's improbable that God exists, real probability is knowledge, so you, the agnostic believe you have special knowledge...

That's crazy.

And here we go with the term 'need' again, assuming wrong that Gods existence is a scientific question when it's obvious it's philosophical ie metaphysical

"The universe needs a foundation" would have merit only if the universe could be shown to be temporal, that is, that it had a beginning in time

Wrong. You are assuming God and the universe are separate entities. If the universe is eternal God would be the foundation, the fundamental being ie thing of the universe, in this dimension or any other... Again, there is no scientific theory that conflicts with theology because theology isn't science, it's philosophy. God can exist in any possible world. Seriously you talk about 'need' I'll ask you if the universe is eternal is Gods existence impossible? Do you really think it's contradictory because if you do you seriously lack imagination and the ability to conceptualize...

But you said need, and just what necessity are you referring to? Scientific? Again, no sheit theology isn't science. But materialism isnt science. Naturalism isn't science. Metaphysical foundations are not science. Do you think your new pet theory eliminates philosophy? It's absurd! No here is the real problem you were a Christian and the only god concept you can wrap your brain around is a god who created the world ex nihilio

Since there is no evidence to that effect and, worse for that claim, there now seems to be evidence against it, the claim can be safely dismissed.

No you failed. Further, if you continue this belief you prove to us it's just faith based. Since you think faith based beliefs are trivial you have some tension with your worldview...
Re: The day the sun danced in the sky.
February 18, 2015 07:56AM
Absurd I already defined God twice in this thread. Ontological terms are the simplest terms, it requires an extra assumption to claim God is simple or complex. No evidence for either so no need to assume either.

Reason doesn't tell you that's impossible. Your boy Dawkins believes just that... That simple things caused more complex things...

And no I'm not assuming a complex being created the universe... Pay attention, you are the one assuming that.

I'm saying the simplest metaphysical explanation to account for all reality is an eternal being, ie something.

We don't need Gods? Quit claiming authority of science it absolutely does not argue for atheism that's stupid...

Why do you encourage clinging to such immature imagery? No one wants to play the IntelligentDesigner game with you anymore.

Give up drop your copy of the God delusion and admit defeat. You two have done absolutely nothing to prove we live in a world absent of God. It's faith based and clear that you hold atheistic beliefs because you desire the lifestyle. It's your culture now and identity. It would be way too hard to let go after so much personal investment
Re: The day the sun danced in the sky.
February 18, 2015 11:02AM
Tuk wrote: I'm saying the simplest metaphysical explanation to account for all reality is an eternal being, ie something

Yes, you've said that several million times now and you've still given no one the first reason to believe that it's true -- especially if the universe, as it now appears, never had a beginning.

What for some reason you can't seem to get (and maybe it's because you've argued for so long that the universe did have a beginning) is that there was never any proof that "all this" (i.e., the universe) had a beginning. What you also don't get is that it appears there is now reason to believe that the universe did not have a beginning. What has no beginning is in no need of a foundation. As your hero W.L. Craig says "[Only] That which begins to exist, has a cause."

What he implies here and says directly in other places is that whatever does not begin to exist is in no need of a cause or foundation. The universe, it appears, never began to exist.

If it is your argument now that even things which do not begin to exist also need a cause (or foundation), then explain why an eternal God doesn't need a cause (or foundation)?
Re: The day the sun danced in the sky.
February 18, 2015 04:20PM
Quote
Sam Wrote:
Isle, Re: "Virtually any evidence can be used as evidence for more than one thing, even opposite things."

This definition of evidence renders it meaningless. There is a difference between USING something as evidence and identifying evidence that reliably favors one explanation over another.

First, that was not a definition of evidence, It's simply a fact 'about' evidence. Second, the fact that statistics, as per the example I gave, can be used as evidence for more than one thing doesn't make evidence meaningless at all. I think your still unable to get past the fact that evidence does not have to meet the standards of proof to be evidence. Even if you think the evidence doesn't meet the standards of proof and you are not persuaded by the evidence…It's still evidence. Circumstantial evidence, for instance, is evidence that relies on an inference to connect it to a conclusion of fact. A piece of circumstantial evidence doesn't usually meet the standards of proof, but it's still evidence that can be used to build a case.

Eyewitness testimony can be and IS used as evidence. Any eyewitness testimony might or might not be convincing or persuasive to you, and even though it's known to not always be reliable, it's still used as evidence in a court of law. In 2112, a case was brought before the Supreme Court that sought to prohibit unreliable eyewitness testimony to be used as evidence in a court of law. It was struck down. Justice Ginsburg wrote in the majority opinion. “The fallibility of eyewitness evidence does not ... warrant a due process rule requiring a trial court to screen such evidence for reliability before allowing the jury to assess its creditworthiness,”…

Re: "Does evidence exist in favor of godthings being the most likely explanation for Fatima or anything else?"

That's a non sequitur. It is a question that is part of the process of "weighing the evidence". It couldn't be asked if the evidence being assessed didn't exist.
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!