02 May 2009, 12:27 pm
02 May 2009, 12:34 pm
02 May 2009, 1:09 pm
02 May 2009, 1:21 pm
02 May 2009, 1:37 pm
02 May 2009, 2:02 pm
Haliphron wrote:
What a bunch of bullsh*t!
What was that for?
Quote:
There are PLENTY of other explanations for religious morals other than them coming from a supernatural being.
Yes. So?
Quote:
Also, WHAT makes you so sure that God wishes to remain undetectable?
I'm not absolutely certain, but it seems a reasonable conclusion. I remember a bible verse being used to make this point also, but I can't remember enough details to find it.
Quote:
You claim that if we try to come up with an experiment to verify his existence that he will interfere with in order to keep his existence non-falsifiable. Im sorry but that is clearly a proposed explanation for results of which there is a much simpler explanation.
If you're trying to bring up occam's razor, that won't help you. The existence of God explains a number of things. A simpler explaination, such as "God doesn't exist", wouldn't explain those things. So it is not unreasonable of me to believe that God does exist.
Quote:
What if I told you that I have an invisible purple dragon that lives in my house and if you try to do something to see that something is actually there he will disappear into another dimension...would you believe me?
Not likely. But then purple dragons aren't omniscient or omnipotent, are they? So theoretically, I could try to outsmart the purple dragon and detect it while it wasn't looking.
Quote:
You're using circular reasoning there buddy. If "statement A" is false than I can make a statement and its automatically true even without verification.
No, if statement A is false, then a statement that hasn't been verified may or may not be true. Statement A can be false. Statement A can also be true, but only if it is verified. You advanced statement A as true, so I pointed out that you needed to verify it.
Quote:
I can make statements that are INCONSISTENT and they are assumed to be true.
No, they're inconsistent.
Quote:
If I make a statement that the Earth is a flat plate on the back of a giant cosmic tortoise is that automatically a VALID statement?
It's not automatically true, no.
Quote:
If you made that statement I would insist that you show me in person where the edge of the Earth is so that I could VERIFY that such a statement is valid.
That would be a physical statement that would be subject to physical verification, so that would be reasonable.
02 May 2009, 2:17 pm
Anacalgon and Awesomelyglorious: The reason why I am not a believer in God is for 2 important reasons:
1. NO physical evidence presented to me that a supernatural, supreme being exists.
2. NO personal contact with such a being; not even within my mind.
The conclusion that God wishes to remain undetectable is just a pathetic excuse unless you can provide some EVIDENCE(physical OR nonphysical) of it. You see, you are NOT going to convince me to take God seriously with philosophical arguments. Because after all, rhetoric can be used to construct an argument for ANYTHING, not matter how absurd or inaccurate.
As for the Bible, it is nothing more than a Book AFAIC. I could write a book that says the Earth is a flat plate resting on the back of a giant tortoise and the Moon is made of green cheese. 
Ancalagon wrote:
That would be a physical statement that would be subject to physical verification, so that would be reasonable.
Ahhhhh! So you admit that when it comes to statements about the physical world that such statements do require verification after all! THAT is what I was specifically referring to when I said that Truth requires verification.
Last edited by Haliphron on 02 May 2009, 2:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.
02 May 2009, 2:18 pm
02 May 2009, 2:23 pm
02 May 2009, 2:30 pm
02 May 2009, 2:35 pm
02 May 2009, 2:38 pm
02 May 2009, 2:39 pm
02 May 2009, 2:41 pm
02 May 2009, 2:45 pm
Ancalagon wrote:
Haliphron wrote:
The conclusion that God wishes to remain undetectable is just a pathetic excuse unless you can provide some EVIDENCE(physical OR nonphysical) of it. You see, you are NOT going to convince me to take God seriously with philosophical arguments.
Nonphysical evidence includes philosophical arguments, which you reject completely.
I wish you'd stop labelling things as pathetic excuses, just because you happen to disagree.
Quote:
Ancalagon wrote:
That would be a physical statement that would be subject to physical verification, so that would be reasonable.
Ahhhhh! So you admit that when it comes to statements about the physical world that such statements do require verification after all! THAT is what I was specifically referring to when I said that Truth requires verification.
Are you rejecting non-physical truth? If so, why do you use logical arguments? Logic is non-physical.
If that is what you mean by "truth", then you shouldn't use the word truth. Use something like "physically verified statement".
Philosophical arguments are purely rhetoric unless you can demonstrate that they have some basis in Reality. As for logic, it turns out that it IS physical. Logic(and even mathematics)is hardwired into the nervous systems of many animals, including us.
You still havent demonstrated logically that God actually does exist. Sorry for the sarcasm, I'll try to be a little more civilized.
If someone claims God exists and cant provide any sort of tangible evidence(to my external sense OR directly through my mind), and then tells me that God is undetectable, the conclusion I draw is that they are trying to cover up the fact that the cannot prove it to me. This is consistent with the fact that people can be dishonest and dont like to admit to being wrong.
This isnt an accusation against you personally , but its a histogram of my thought processes.
Last edited by Haliphron on 02 May 2009, 2:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.
02 May 2009, 2:47 pm
