Atheism isn’t a belief, and truth requires objective evidence, you’ve offered none, and are still running away from every request to do so.
At least you’ve stopped pretending you’re a philosopher with any interest in debate. I’d suggest if you want to peddle superstition, then church might be a better place for your verbiage.
Yes, this is true. For example:
This logically implies that Existence does not exist. This is false because of an inconsistency in semantics.
Existence exists. Triangles have three sides. These are truths. Perhaps someone can just accept these truths without any logic involved. In that sense, you make a fair point. But this does not take away from the fact that if something is logically inconsistent, then it is certainly false. Also, this does not take away from the fact that we need logic to establish consistency between semantics. Whenever there is inconsistency between semantics, then there is what is certainly false. Whether it’s in a movie, or theory, if it’s semantically inconsistent (as in it amounts 1 thing being 2 different things at the same time, or something coming from nothing) then it’s certainly wrong. What is essential is consistency in semantics. Logic is a necessary tool for this. This is what I meant by logic is necessary for truth. For example:
Infinity = that which has no beginning and no end
Existence = that which all things exist in
With logic highlighting consistency in semantics we say: If Existence does not exist, then non-existence exists, non-existence can never exist (hypothetically impossible), therefore Existence is Infinite.
Objective empirical evidence is why we have paradigm shifts in science, as science requires this before it accepts anything.
Now remind us, how many deities has science ever evidenced? It’s none in case you’re struggling. How many supernatural events has science ever evidenced? Its, oh I know this one, no don’t tell me, yes it’s none again isn’t it.
So why do theists endlessly and dishonestly try to include science in their rhetoric, when they come here to peddle their superstitious wares.
If you’re struggling, I can answer that for you as well…
Now any chance I’ll get an answer to a single request for evidence to support your claims?
I think we all know the answer to that one…
Paradigm shifts happen when an empirical observation results in an inconsistency in semantics in a given theory.
I’ve already presented twice. As in I’ve shown how rejection of God/Perfection results in an inconsistency in semantics. You say I didn’t. I’ll leave you to your beliefs.
So you’re claiming science doesn’t need objective empirical evidence before it accepts a paradigm shift in its understanding?
You’re off your tits sorry.
Ah the old theist lie “I’ve offered the evidence, how did you miss it?”
Again, you’re off your tits sunshine if you think anyone here doesn’t see that lie at face value.
Save the lies for other theists who have no interest in objective fact, and simply want to preserve their a priori beliefs.
What do you think empirical observation is? And what do you think objective empirical evidence is? Again, I’ll repeat:
Paradigm shifts happen when an empirical observation results in an inconsistency in semantics in a given theory .
Inconsistency in semantics = contradiction = hypothetical impossibility
A priori beliefs are by definition objective. Science fully adheres to a priori beliefs otherwise it’d be completely useless. Science interprets empirical observations in line with a priori beliefs such as 1 + 1 = 2. Science is not 100%. Science is an empirical matter. Pure reason and semantics, and a priori beliefs, are 100%. They dictate what’s good science. They dictate what’s right and what’s wrong. Science fully adheres to them. As do any reasonable or good theory, person, movie, belief etc. If x is not in line with the a priori, then x is useless (if not harmful).
You are way off base on what science is. You are way off base on what constitutes proof or evidence. You are in need of guidance regarding these matters. I’m not sure if you deserve it or not.
That depends, are we using the accepted dictionary definitions, or are these going to be your own personal ones again?
Is that why you ignored my questions asking how many deities or supernatural events science has evidenced?
Theists love to invoke science and logic, but if science had produced a shred of evidenced supporting the existence of any deity I think it’s safe to assume we wouldn’t need you to be making the claim on here, would we? The same would be true for rational arguments supporting the existence if any deity. Nor are we forgetting that you have ignored all rational flaws exposed in your arguments like the begging the question fallacies you used.
However despite your condescending rhetoric, I’ll keep an open mind, please link the peer reviewed research that evidences any deity? Only I’m not seeing any news about any scientists winning the Nobel prize for evidencing the existence of a god? Even the catholic church and the Templeton Foundation seem to have missed your breakthrough.
Now once again since you’ve continued to ignore my requests…
As a corollary to my above post, since it mentions the Templeton Foundation, I’ll provide a link to a well informed critique of it.
I do believe it’s possible for existence (again, one more time… the fact or state of living or having objective reality.) to be omnipresent IF the definition is used as widely or constantly encountered; common or widespread.
In other words (or semantics) this is what I would mean:
Life, and “things” that are validated to be real and shown to have an interaction and effect within reality…this is common and constantly encountered as we (as a society) move forward with scientific discoveries.
HOWEVER your semantics and argument (especially with the capitals) is
God is present everywhere at the same time.
So in light of your usage and semantics- we do disagree because there is no demonstrable evidence for “god” or your Capitized Existence.
Only if the empirical evidence can be objectively validated by the scientific method.
Not all empirical observations lead to objective facts.
Have you ever seen a tawdry magic show?
If someone claims they were beamed aboard a spaceship, and claim their empirical observations evidence this, what’s my rational objection? Someone did this very thing on here recently, only claimed to have seen god obviously.
You mean you have made a subjective argument. An argument that from the opening post contained unevidenced assumptions about that deity. So based on a begging the question fallacy .
Are you going to take your ball home as well.
What beliefs are you assigning me here, I asked the last time you made this claim, but unsurprisingly you ignored my question?
I feel a recap is apropos here. From @Philosopher’s third premise. I have yet to see him present any objective evidence that unicorns are possible.
I know no such thing about unicorns, and I find the claim dubious.
An argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, as not knowing that unicorns are impossible, does not mean we can rationally assert the opposite. This is a tried and tested canard in religious apologetics.
No we don’t, and I’d love to see you even attempt evidence that claim, though after a hundred posts I’m not holding my breath.
Another argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy is imminent. Not knowing it’s impossible doesn’t mean we can rationally assert the opposite.
Hmm two unevidenced assumptions about omnipotence in an argument for omnipotence, so a begging the question fallacy.
You might want to speak to Lawrence Krauss, however I’m simply going to disbelieve your unevidenced claim that something cannot come from nothing.
Why do I sense another appeal to ignorance fallacy is imminent.
Tenuous semantics, omnipotence is a word, understanding its meaning no more makes it an extant state than understanding the meaning of leprechaun or wizard makes them extant.
You can change it to mermaid or garden fairy, and then assign those attributes you’ve assumed a deity has without evidence, and get the same result.
A priori , Latin for “from the former”, and these formerly held beliefs need not be objective.
Absolutely. Hallelujah brother 
If you don’t acknowledge that semantics are a priori and that language is a posteriori, then I can’t help you. You seem to think meaning/semantics come from non-existence. Or you seem to think humans throw letters together to make meaning. You have it backwards. Existence gives meaning to everything. We label those meanings. Existence dictates what’s meaningful/possible and what’s hypothetically impossible/meaningless. You do not say give me empirical evidence that triangle means triangle (unless you are deeply misguided like the Pyrrhonian sceptic…which is what your words suggest)*, you accept it because you understand it. You accept it because you are aware of semantics and that there is logical consistency between them, such that when there is an inconsistency in semantics, you are saying something that is not true of Existence. It’s that simple, yet here you are rejecting the a priori (something the empirical/a posteriori must fully adhere to). Nobody observed Existence come from non-existence or Existence be Infinite. Yet, the latter is accepted the former is rejected. That is of course, if one intends on being rationally and semantically consistent. You would say semantical inconsistency is no proof. Give me empirical observations. Semantical inconsistency IS proof. You do not know what proof is.
The fact that you think science is not wholly rooted in the a priori is pure madness. The scientific method, you seem to think it was formed independently of a priori principles. Some understanding of the philosophy of science would have been good, but you don’t even believe in a priori truths, so how will you believe anything?
Your posts show you don’t have a clue on what it is to reason in a mature manner. This is my final reply to you. It’s up to you to put effort in and make sense of all that I have already posted. I will try no more with you beyond the following:
Existence being infinite accounts for why all semantics are meaningful. It is inconsistent to believe that a finite existence can contain an infinite number of semantics.
Round squares, married bachelors, non-existence existing, sitting and standing at the same time, these are all hypothetical impossibilities. What makes something a hypothetical impossibility? That it cannot exist. That it cannot be true of Existence. It cannot be true of Existence that there is a man sitting and standing at the same time. Or that there is a round square. Or that non-existence exists. Or that Existence does not exist. Or that Existence is finite.
If something is hypothetically impossible, then it is not meaningful or understandable. You cannot understand a round square. Round has meaning. Square has meaning. Round square has no meaning. THERE CAN BE NOTHING THAT IS BOTH HYPOTHETICALLY IMPOSSIBLE AND MEANINGFUL AT THE SAME TIME.
4. What makes something meaningful? Existence being the way that it is (Infinite). A finite existence cannot contain an infinite number of semantics. A finite existence does not make all possibilities truly possible. If x is not truly possible, then it’s impossible (like a round square). I tried to explain to you what potentiality/possibility is via the sentence of:
It’s possible that time travel is possible.
Trying to show you the distinction between what is an unknown and what is a known possibility/potential
But you completely dismissed it.
We’re done here.
We’ll have to agree to disagree. It is not possible that Existence is Omnipresent. It is certain that Existence is Omnipresent. Just as it is certain that a triangle has three sides. A non-omnipresent Existence logically entails that Existence does not exist everywhere, which logically entails that non-existence exists somewhere, which is contradictory. I have argued that Existence is Infinite and Perfect via showing that the attributes Infinity and Perfection, cannot semantically denote anything other than Existence. I have shown semantical inconsistencies in rejecting the nature of Existence as being Infinite and Perfect. If you do not believe semantical inconsistencies prove that a given theory or belief is wrong, then my proof will not be meaningful to you. But as with anything, if you want to prove something to be wrong, you meaningfully show that it is contradictory (semantically inconsistent)
If you can’t understand that a priori is a latin phrase meaning
from the former”, and that formerly held beliefs need not be objective, then I can’t help you.
If you can’t see that not knowing that omnipotence is impossible, in no way infers it is rational to conclude it is possible then I can’t help you.
If you think a priori scientific knowledge, is comparable to unevidenced a priori beliefs in archaic superstition, then you’re very wrong.
You seem more and more to be attempting to troll with misrepresentations of what’s been said now, that’s a little sad, but not perhaps wholly unexpected.
I’ve already offered substantive responses to debunk your initial claims, so I feel no obligation to re-read your verbiage, or repeat those valid objections, if you’re not honest enough to acknowledge valid objections to your rationale then debate clearly isn’t for you. If you are then scroll back and read them, instead of creating endless straw man claims based on dishonest misrepresentation of what’s been said.
It’s also possible it’s not possible. So two
meaningless claims using tautologies. This kind of weaselly worded dishonest semantics just shown how desperate your apologetics is. Though why you’re again introducing the red herring of time travel only you can know. You should stick to mythical deities, as you’ve yet to show objective evidence or rational argument that any deity is even possible.
I suggest you look up argumentum ad ignorantiam, and learn what it means, as your claim that it is rational to conclude that something might be possible because we cannot know it is impossible is a textbook use of that fallacy. Placing the words might be in front of possible doesn’t remove the burden of proof to your claim
Another lie I’m betting. You might be, that’s your choice of course, but you don’t get to tell anyone else here what to do.
Time to apply Hitchens’s razor to your bombast now. Like so many religious apologists before you, you’re putting your clapped out wheezy old pony behind your cart, by starting with your superstitious beliefs and then trying to mould evidence around them. Rather than moulding your beliefs to everything else.
I note with irony that you predictable failed to offer a single belief that you claimed I hold.
I’m losing the will to exist…
You’re not the middleweight boxer Chris Eubank by any chance, are you?
The non- existence of non-existent existence can only not exist in a non-existent scenario, where existence exists only in its existential state, and thus the opposite is not irrational, where existence cannot not exist in an existential state of non- existent existence, existing, as it must, alongside an extant state of existential non-existence.
After reading some of this, crack seems to be the most logical answer…
it seems like you can’t help anyone
That is the dumbest thing I’ve read on AR in quite a while; maybe a year or two.