Ah the watch maker argument, another piss poor position.
The creator of that car was a naturally occurring phenomena, that was functioning with the laws of nature and physics, with none of those laws being suspended in the persons favor.
You are still yet to demonstrate that ‘your’ creator exists.
It’s not a fact, nor does the unevidenced claim evidence any deity?
Not what you claimed, and I am dubious I can see anything supernatural with my own eyes. Again all I see are subjective claims, no objective evidence.
Claiming to have seen something is subjective, you’ve shared no knowledge, only endless subjective claims?
Woo woo…
I didn’t experience anything when I was dead for billions of years, I am dubious that is going to change.
The claims you made are anecdotal, telling me I can find a unicorn in the woods is not objective evidence they can be found in the woods.
Still a subjective claim, and still woo woo.
I have, many times. This remains an unevidenced and subjective claim. You might as well be telling me to go search the ocean for invisible mermaids.
How can you assert that it is not a fact? How can i unequivocally know it to be the truth, whereas you are unaware? The answer is simple: you are blind to the truth.
Ah yes. Sheldon’s impervious inability to allow anyone any flexibility when explaining their point of view.
Okay, Sheldon. Even though I am saying it now, I didn’t say it before, which unequivocally means I did not have it in mind … correct?
The existence of darkness is an objective fact. The existence of a human emotion in relation to that darkness is also an objective fact. That you fail to see the connection is yet another objective fact!
Fuck. You make me sick sometimes, Shelly. I have seen darkness. You have seen darkness. I have known darkness. You have known darkness. Desist with this dishonest rabbit trapping!
Hmm. Yes. Indeed. Woo woo. We are not surrounded by darkness?
Especially when you’re unwilling to go look. And I haven’t asked you to find a unicorn. I’ve asked you to come to terms with your essential being.
Darkness is real. Humans evolved to perceive darkness and to form a direct phenomenological relationship with it.
Hyperbole. Exaggeration. And dishonesty.
Then be “dubious”.
Were you there when your god created the universe? Going for the bible response already? The bible was written by the First Council of Nicaea and they were barely literate and knew next to nothing about the world.
Can you yourself demonstrate miracles like Jesus promised in the book of Matthew? Can you heal the sick and the blind? Move mountains?
No? Didn’t think so. A Muslim’s claim that Allah exists holds about as much weight as your claim about your god.
Not one of us was there. Neither were OOL scientists.
Yes i have seen miracles in my life and have heard of miracles from someone i know and have read of them as well from someone contemporary to us.
I think you mean why, and the answer is that all you offered was a bare subjective claim.
Nope, I don’t think fact means what you think it means.
This doesn’t change the fact that the woo woo claims you tacked onto that were unevidenced subjective claims. If you claim to have seen a mermaid in the Mississippi river, the fact the Mississippi river exists as an objective fact, doesn’t alter the fact that it is an unevidenced subjective claim.
Straw man…
Irrespective of who has looked. The Loch Ness monster is not evidenced because I am disinclined to go look for it. If someone claims to have seen it, then that is an unevidenced subjective claim.
I never said you had.
Woo woo.
Actual it simply an absence of light, and nothing about it evidences any of the woo woo you’re trying to tack on to it.
Both claims are asking others to go and evidence an unevidenced subjective claim, that’s the purpose of the comparison. The hyperbole is quite deliberate, as you don’t appear to understand your own bias here, exaggeration is moot after labelling it hyperbole, and there was no dishonesty.
That’s a given, since I cannot be otherwise when confronted with unevidenced assertions, that are not supported by any facts.
Based on this response, you seem to be casting doubt on the claims recorded in the old ‘holy’ books because you weren’t there.
You think I’m eternal? Because i wasnt an eyewitness of creation doesnt negate what we see in creation
I don’t see any creation, and you have demonstrated no objective evidence for any creator.
I don’t claim to know. It’s evident your religion is man made and has a book that claims to know all of the answers. Because you read it and went to church, you now believe the universe has a creator. But your god is largely absent with no evidence of anything it’s ever done. That’s up there with Muslim and Hindu claims that their gods created the universe. Why do you think that is?
Oddly enough you haven’t demonstrated any objective evidence He doesn’t exist and there are so many holes to natural selection that it requires its followers blind and strong faith
I know you don’t but i am not unreasonable to think you were. But sadly double standards are very often used here.
What double standards?
Again, we don’t need to prove that he/it, whatever doesn’t exist, you have to prove that it does exist. You’re the one making the claim.
“Anything that is claimed to exist without any evidence, can be dismissed without evidence”.
Easily verified by anyone with a brain
“Factual”
As explained, the existence of higher beings in inter dimensional realms is implicit in knowledge that transcendental love can be ascertained by the mind through the recognition of it in darkness.
First you need to verify that you can perceive darkness.
Then you need to verify that transcendental love exists in the darkness.
The existence of that type of love reveals the underlying nature all beings share with the darkness. Ie. beings of pure transcendental love exist in that darkness.
False equivalency.
Transcendental Love is hardly as Unevidenced as a mermaid.
The proper analogy is:
“I looked into the Mississippi River and saw that it was composed of water.”
Ie. “I found transcendental love when peering into the darkness of the void.”
We have long standing religious traditions which affirm the idea of a universe that offers love to its inhabitants.
Such affirmations are common in all parts of the world.
I don’t affiliate with any of those spiritual traditions, nor do I believe one even should in order to experience the love in the midst of us.
Thank you …
“And nothing about it evidences any of the woo woo.”
Exactly! The nothingness is the evidence for the woo woo.
Mmm hmm. And if I were to tell you that I experience pain when I put my hand on the top of a hot stove, would that be a subjective or objective claim?
That’s not odd at all, it’s called an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy. The burden of proof lies with your claim a deity exists, not with those who disbelieve it.
That one is called a false dichotomy fallacy, it’s not a choice between natural selection, or an unevidenced deity from an archaic superstition, using inexplicable magic.
Nope, you’re just trolling.
That is a subjective claim, and your ordinal claim was not a fact.
That remains a bare subjective claim.
So then we are back to this:
…not being a fact, but a cryptic subjective unevidenced claim.
No it isn’t, it’s an unevidenced subjective claim.
Two unevidenced subjective claims.
[quote=“rat_spit, post:738, topic:3719”]
The existence of that type of love[/quote]
Has not been remotely evidenced, nor have you explained how it remotely evidences any deity, as per your original claim…
Oh dear, of course it isn’t don’t be silly, tacking subjective unevidenced claims onto facts doesn’t make them true.
As I said this is an unevidenced subjective claim, to which you dishonestly replied that I was denying the existence of darkness, rather than the woo woo superstitious part, hence my hypothetical of a claim to have seen a mermaid in the Mississippi, which gains no credence because it contains a fact. Anymore than the existence of darkness evidences your claim.
No it is not, and you seem to have misread my post judging from that “exactly”.
Can you demonstrate any objective evidence it happened? Are you claiming your subjective experience of pain was anything but a natural phenomenon?
What has this to do with there be no evidence we can survive our own deaths in any meaningful way? Or the fact that I was dead for billions of years and experienced nothing?
You still need evidence for a synthesizer. All you’ve posited is a synthesizer of the gaps.
Not up to me to decide. Up to you, the person making the claim. To demonstrate.
A synthesizer of the gaps is no better argument than a God of the gaps. You still need evidence for the synthesizer and evidence for your assertion that the synthesizer you speak of had anything at all to do with creating anything at all. You might also explain how you rules out ‘natural causation.’
Still easily verified to be an objective reality by anyone with a brain
Verifiable as an ordinary, objective, universally experienced reality (if you have a brain inside your skull and can comprehend darkness with your mind).
Nope. It’s a direct consequence of the above mentioned verifiable facts.
Verifiable by anyone with a brain.
Adequately described with verifiable principles. If you can’t A) comprehend the nature of darkness, then you cannot B) see the inherent love in the darkness. Without B) your understanding of C) the higher beings who dwell constantly in that state is lacking (I never said “Gods” or “deities”).
Ha. And what is the existence of darkness if not transcendental love?
How about the burns on my hands? And no. The occurrence is purely a tactile evolutionary adaptation to prevent me from destroying my body in relation to super hot surfaces.
As to the objective evidence from contact with transcendental love … we can start with the extreme volumes of relaxation in my body. A purely natural evolutionary adaptation to encourage me to sustain the body by releasing stress from my muscles, tendons, sinews.
Exactly. You experienced nothing. How funny that, now you are something and you don’t recall the state of sublime transcendental love in which you once existed.
This remains an unevidenced subjective claim, no matter how many times you repeat it?
Again all you offered was an unevidenced subjective claim, and now you’re making another one.
Indeed, but that wasn’t the entirety of your claim, and it in no way represents evidence for any deity or anything supernatural. FYI if you have a brain in your skull you can comprehend mermaids and unicorns, this doesn’t make them real. Nor would making the unevidenced subjective claim they "live in the darkness.
And that is another subjective unevidenced claim. What one wonders do you hope to gain by lining these up in tandem like this? I will never understand why religious apologists think they can prop up an unevidenced assertion with another unevidenced assertion.
Three.
I strongly disagree, word salad has no descriptive powers.
Four…I am simply going to number the unevidenced subjective claims from now on.
Straw man, darkness is the the partial or total absence of light. It’s you are don’t comprehend it, as you’re making claims that have nothing to do with what it means. Religious apologists love these meaningless appeals to mystery, who knows why.
Meaningless word salad, love is not inherent in darkness, the statement is meaningless, like saying fish are inherent in the trees.
Five. What higher beings, what does that even mean, and what evidence can you etc etc etc…
Hmmm…you have also predicated this discourse in response to my question to @Sid to evidence his claim that love was evidence for a deity. I sense a moving of the goal posts, but I suggest you offer a clear and accurate explanation of what you think a higher being is, though I anticipate more word salad.
Meaningless word salad, like asking what is the existence of fish if not turnips.
You’d need to offer more than a claim for it to represent objective evidence.
Then pain seems irrelevant to your unevidenced claim that I will survive my death in any meaningful way.
This doesn’t need love, let alone magic, and so is not objective evidence for woo woo love you have yet to demonstrate is even possible.
If it’s purely natural then it doesn’t evidence anything supernatural, by definition.
Which rather refutes your claim I will “meet my maker” when I die. I can’t meet anything if I can’t experience anything, and that was the case for billions of years before I was born.
You have offered no evidence this is possible, and I experienced no such thing, so what’s funny is you suggesting not experiencing anything when I was dead, is evidence I will experience something when I die. That makes no sense.