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 
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.
Sam
Re: The day the sun danced in the sky.
February 24, 2015 01:43AM
There is no evidence of any kind to support the claim that any gods or godthings exist. Absence of evidence is evidence of absence when it comes to how I weigh things in the real world and that's the world in which I live. I don't know about you or any of the other agnogs and believers and how you process information to form your (un)beliefs. To me, evidence must be traced to its cause, not the other way around. I don't know of any example of when we make up a cause or an entity and then look for evidence of it. We find effects of something then find the something. Don't you do it that way? Please no more fruit salad. I'm full. winking smiley
Re: The day the sun danced in the sky.
February 24, 2015 02:14AM
Got to love the atheists getting slaughtered by the agnostics. So much in fact that the have to call them theists and do what their Dawkins master tells them... Ridicule your debating partner... Weak sauce...

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.

Nice argument against metaphysics. Of course your "we live in a world absent of God" claim is inherently philosophical ie metaphysical. I mean it's just possibility Dick. Do you play the lottery?

Science is probabilistic; philosophy is not. Philosophy is about possibility and consistency. Normally healthy thinking adults give people a pass at what philosophical beliefs they hold... It just seems like defending freedom of thought and shows a respect that nobody has all the answers...

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?

God is the simplest foundational metaphysical explanation to account for all reality. That's what I'm saying.
Re: The day the sun danced in the sky.
February 24, 2015 02:16AM
Sam...

Don't stop... Believing! Hold on to that feeeellllllliiinnngggg yeah yeah!
Re: The day the sun danced in the sky.
February 24, 2015 03:34AM
Quote
Sam Wrote:
I don't know of any example of when we make up a cause or an entity and then look for evidence of it.

Sam, obviously you wouldn't make a good scientist! Whatever you do, don't ever think about becoming a theoretical physicist, or an astronomer, or...well...just about any kind of scientist! winking smiley

Why are you so reluctant to tell me how you define evidence, as opposed to the standard, generally accepted definition, in order that you can make it confirm your belief (that there is "zero evidence" etc.)?

I'm curious about that. confused smiley
Sam
Re: The day the sun danced in the sky.
February 24, 2015 04:42AM
Here's what I'm curious about, isle. Since you believe the millions of anecdotal pieces of "evidence" for the existence of some god(thing), why don't you believe it exists? Almost every single godist will have a story to tell. In your mind, is it all really evidence that a god(thing) exists?
Re: The day the sun danced in the sky.
February 24, 2015 05:14AM
Sam, I looked at the evidence, weighed it, but thus far none of it is persuasive enough to convince me. That doesn't, of course mean it isn't evidence.

The evidence includes first person testimony which is "direct evidence" and considered material evidence. There is also plenty of circumstantial evidence. Circumstantial evidence is evidence of a fact which reasonably infers the existence or nonexistence of another fact. Circumstantial evidence is not direct observation of a fact that is in dispute.

The degree of credibility you give to eyewitness testimony has no bearing on whether it is evidence. It's still evidence even if you find the credibility of the witness lacking. As I said earlier, "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 2012, 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: The day the sun danced in the sky.
February 24, 2015 10:28AM
Tuk wrote: Got to love the atheists getting slaughtered by the agnostics.

It's kinda difficult to win an argument with a group who argues both sides of an issue.

Agnostic Tuk: There is no evidence that God exists!

Agnostic Islander: There is evidence that God exists!

Why don't you guys flip a coin and pick a belief already and get back to me?

On the evidence thing . . . if we're going to count a child's claim that he saw the image of the face of the Madonna on a piece of toast as evidence of God's existence, then there is evidence for God's existence. There's just no good, solid evidence; the kind of evidence that a mature, objective woman in full possession of her faculties would find the least bit persuasive.
Re: The day the sun danced in the sky.
February 24, 2015 11:13AM
Either there is evidence for God's existence or there's not. If there is, then which proposition does the bulk of the evidence favor: "God exists" or "God doesn't exist"?

Just taking the most talked about piece of evidence in this thread as an example (the miracle at Fatima), I would say that piece of evidence supports the "God does not exist" proposition rather than the "God exists" one.

To me, that event suggests that at least some of God belief is psychological in nature and is not based in observation of reality. I say this for a few reasons.

First, it's a well-known fact (despite what TheThorn thinks he knows) that people, with the least bit of prodding and a smidgen of visual information, will see what they want to see, especially when they are in an excited, anticipatory state as the crowd in the small Portugese city of Fatima was on that day. Magicians depend on this fact in order to perform their illusions.

Second, it's another well-known fact that people who stare at the sun are prone to suffer optical effects from that act. I think some people saw something, but it's much more likely that what they saw had more to do with the physical effect the sun's rays had on their retinas rather than the sun itself actually spinning around and dancing back and forth toward the earth and changing color.

Others in the crowd, already in a mood of heightened anticipation, easily convinced themselves that they were seeing the same thing when they saw nothing at all. This is another well-researched psychological phenomenon.

Interestingly, some Christians, immersed in the same crowd of people, reported seeing nothing unusual.

Third, no astronomer in the world nor anyone else outside of Fatima, as far as is known, reported observing anything unusual about the sun's movements on that day. Since the sun is seen by half the globe at any time of the day, the fact that no one else noticed the sun doing anything unusual strongly suggests that the sun was its usual self that day just as one would expect and did not go crazy.

It's unlikely that anyone in that crowd that day will ever be convinced that they did not see exactly what they believe they saw and, as a result, be convinced that God -- or anything else outside their own brains -- had nothing to do with it. Many true believers were born on that day, and -- since the Catholic Church officially accepted this event as a miracle -- not just in Fatima, either.

There's a perfectly valid natural explanation for what happened that day in Fatima, yet millions of people are so ready to believe in the supernatural that they reject that explanation, the more likely explanation, in order to believe what they want to believe is true . . .

and that's the way God belief spreads.
Sam
Re: The day the sun danced in the sky.
February 24, 2015 04:45PM
To me, it doesn't count as evidence, weak or strong, if it can be used to support both a claim and its counter claim. Just look at the definition of evident: plain or obvious; clearly seen or understood. This is where the word evidence is derived. If it's not plain, obvious, clearly seen or understood then it's not evident and, therefore, not evidence in my book.

If the agnogs are confused, it's no surprise!! If they really believed there is one iota of evidence in favor of the existence of any god or godthing much less billions of stories you would think they would be full-on proud believers. But no, they know better. They can't form workable definitions for the thing they want to exist so bad, they have loads of "evidence" for its existence, they believe it is irrational to believe there are no godthings and YET they still stay on the fence. Why? Because they know it's a load of crap but they still have some godseeds in their brains they cannot shake out. Metaphysics is just a game for people who can't accept reality as it is due to programming, mental gymnastics and wishful thinking.
Re: The day the sun danced in the sky.
February 24, 2015 05:19PM
Islander defined the terms there should be no issue...

When I say there is no evidence for or against the existence of God I mean there is no evidence to form a rati
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!