My apologies.
Twenty characters
1 Like
But it’s pretty clear that I’m Christian; it’s my personal belief. I think it’s obvious from my username… Why should I need to clarify something so evident?
Spiritual conviction… I’m not sure if you fully understand what it means. For me, it’s a personal experience.
The answer requires some context, but I got lost in it, haha…
But it’s a good point… come on!
But you know that subjective experiences exist…
Because they might be unconsciously addressing something you overlook but is important.
It doesn’t change the fact that we should care about qualia.
No, I’m suggesting that proving qualia is the result of a physical process doesn’t change the fact that we must still engage with it properly.
Well, the fact that qualia is unfalsifiable doesn’t change the reality that the suffering you could be causing may still be very real. I might think that pigs have no qualia, but that doesn’t change the fact that the suffering I could be causing them is entirely real. Extend this idea to the rest of creation, and consider what we’re doing.
As you know, evolution doesn’t require understanding or evidence; it’s a blind process that adapts to reality, not to what we think exists. Evolution has produced mechanisms that lead us to treat our environment as something sentient rather than inert, which I find quite interesting.
I know exactly what those words mean, but why are you spinning this away from the point again? The definition of faith @TheMagus offered closely reflects the definition of religious faith, the one you offered does not?
Not…one…word…seriously.
Your answer to me took seconds? Do you see how this looks in a debate forum, the kind of impression it creates when a simple question with a simple answer, gets 4 paragraphs of word salad? If you need a clue, I mentioned Occam’s razor for a reason.
No, it’s a bare claim, that has no relevance to what he asked. Post what you want, but why quote a simple question and then ignore it completely?
Can you offer something that can be objectively demonstrated to be important from a mythology, that I could not get without unevidenced mythologies? For the record “might be” is semantically identical to might not be.
Was that what I said? My post addressed a false equivalence fallacy you used, and you respond with a straw man fallacy? So this response is both irrelevant and irrational.
That’s not remotely what you said? Here:
And the proper way to engage with ideas that are unfalsifiable, untestable, and or unevidenced, and that have no explanatory powers is to withhold belief, and keep an open mind. I am talking specifically about panpsychism.
Straw man fallacy, why do you leap aways from the point all the time like this?
I shall never kick a rock ever again…you are very wrong if you think others have not examined their conscience about the suffering our dietary requirements impose on other sentient animals. But this is not relevant to the fact that panpsychism is unfalsifiable, untestable, unevidenced, and has no explanatory powers.
No it hasn’t? I don’t treat my environment as sentient, not in the sense evolved brains are observed to produce sentience?
1 Like
all atheists are brainwashed and all who do not believe EXACTLY like you…except you? How come?
not because they believe EXACTLY like me but rather because of the repeated failures of their logical arguments devoid of reasoning and evidence.
The EVIDENCE of their brainwashing is on full display in their repeated nonsense that they try to sell as reasoning.
So then it is all this overwhelming EVIDENCE that supports the conclusion that they are brainwashed.
Concepts like god are inherently unfalsifiable.
Wrong. Design is provable.
Look at a jet, it designed.
Look at the universe it is designed.
They are easy to make up and impossible to prove. Thus, unfalsifiable things take faith (belief without proof).
That is rich. Like the Atheist view that a bunch of magic magnets poofed in to existence all by themselves. That is called EVIDENCE of design.
And all the EVIDENCE from the big bang to the periodic table is PROOF of design. You see how that works, I take a whole bunch of EVIDENCE then put it together to PROVE something.
What you people do, on the other hand, is wave your hands around screaming “Your evidence doesn’t count. Your evidence doesn’t count” while supporting this wisdom with the same tired, weak, disproven arguments that you people always come up with. Oh and after spewing constant nonsense (while I, again, give mountains of EVIDENCE), they get together and give each other high fives for winning even though they have no valid reasoning and never did.
To summarize, I provide mountain of EVIDENCE after mountain of EVIDENCE.
While the Atheists say “that doesn’t count” because if they didn’t then their nonsense arguments would constantly fall apart.
You people just do not use reasoning. That’s why you are brainwashed.
It’s not “brainwashing”, it’s common sense.
Fine. Right up until the point when a person starts using arguments that contradict themselves.
And when people continually give me the same tired, disproven arguments over and over and over, that is EVIDENCE that they are brainwashed beyond reasoning.
You really want the truth?
Go read the OP its all right there.
Brainwashing is a real thing.
It does actually screw up peoples heads.
I am not telling you people that you are Brainwashed for lack of argument.
The argument is proven you people just cannot see it.
I am telling you people that you are Brainwashed because you are incapable of using reasoning about Design. Read the nonsense that they call logic. That is EVIDENCE of their brainwashing (or flat out ignorance in some cases)
I have seen a number of definitions of faith, none of them have ever had anything to do with love. The epistemological definition of faith is: “Belief without proof” because it is relevant to this conversation and is the faith that Jesus spoke of. Aka, doubting Thomas.
This is relativism. So if Bob makes up a religion it is a interface that helps others see truth?
Right, my pot church.
This is really subjective. How does one find objective truth using their preferences? How do we know that any religion is true anyway? Why pick the best one of something that could be a lie?
How do you define fundamental? Saying that god exists is making an objective claim about reality, which would be falsifiable if there was objective evidence, but there isn’t. Just post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacies of “stuff is here so my god must have done it”. Note that this is just as bad as saying that the matter and energy initially came from nothing. The fact is we don’t know. Just assuming something doesn’t help.
As far as qualia is concerned, your own experiences are falsifiable by you. We are all constantly measuring the universe with our senses. We can’t falsify the experience of others unless we have objective evidence, but it does sometimes happen.
The goal here is knowledge. It is easy to make an unfalsifiable claim. There is no way to have knowledge of something if it is unfalsifiable.
1 Like
Most Christians focus on “how else could the universe get here”. It looks like you are focusing on “how else would our minds (qualia) get here”. This is still a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy (assuming the source). Once again, just assuming a source doesn’t help us. I have no idea how our minds work at that level. However, I’m not going to just assume magical beings exist. There are plenty of things about the universe we don’t know and that’s okay. But assuming things out of ignorance is a waste of time at best, deadly at worst.
“Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong.” - Thomas Jefferson
2 Likes
Lol… Definitions hold their feet to the fire.
It is more of a general question. How do you pick from these without objective evidence. Why did he faith himself into his religion?
2 Likes
Without any objective evidence seems to be the answer.
2 Likes
I point to an entire Universe of magic magnets that poofed into existence.
That is called massive evidence.
That is called a straw man fallacy.
Look dude, you probably saw somebody use the term “straw man” somewhere and thought it looked cool so now you do it. I get it.
But when exactly nothing suddenly turns into an entire universe of very useful material that is EVIDENCE. Real physical EVIDENCE.
And you call it a straw man fallacy.
It’s such a bizarre thing to say.
I am not creating a straw man fake argument then beating him down with nonsense.
What I am doing is, get ready, CALLING EVIDENCE EVIDENCE.
In this case an entire universe worth of EVIDENCE.
People this is exactly my point.
Yes, this dude is screwed up in the head and does not at all have a grasp for what the term “straw man fallacy” even means. But he should still be able to see that EVIDENCE IS EVIDENCE. But he does not. Why? Because he is clinically brainwashed down at the deep end.
There is no straw man dude.
I am just pointing out massive EVIDENCE that you brainwashed folk cannot even acknowledge as EVIDENCE because your brains ain’t working right.
Without any objective evidence seems to be the answer.
The big bang IS EVIDENCE of design.
Gravity IS EVIDENCE of design.
Fusion energy IS EVIDENCE of design.
You people are asking high level questions about a high level dude and you cannot even understand that EVIDENCE IS EVIDENCE.
It’s easy to call something evidence. You haven’t given us any evidence, only used fallacies (bad reasoning).
You have no objective evidence that it is designed; you are assuming that and want to believe it. There have been plenty of experiments that show that a system with energy input, like our planet with the sun, can exhibit increasing complexity over time. We have never ran an experiment that showed that the universe had to be designed. What happened before the big bang? We don’t know. You are claiming that you do know without evidence.
Major premise: Some god could exist.
Minor Premise: The universe exists and is complex.
Therefore: It must be designed and god exists.
This is a assuming the source fallacy (post hoc ergo propter hoc). You are making an assumption. We know the big bang existed because of the measurable cosmic background radiation and the measurable expansion of the universe. Now, we don’t know where the mass and energy came from initially because we can’t measure that (at least yet). We have not, and cannot measure this design, because it is unfalsifiable. Why is this not a fallacy? How does assuming here help you unless it is to support a pre-conceived idea?
Notice anybody could assume anything here:
This is proof that Aliens exists, because they caused the big bang.
This is proof that a turtle in an alternate dimension farted and cause the big bang.
This is proof that energy and mass did not exist before the big bang and just started existing then.
The fact is that we do not know. Any assumption here is a fallacy.
Yes, that is what we are trying to get you to do. If I see a book on a table I wouldn’t just assume god put it there because I have never measured god.
What you people do (theists) is to not bother understanding simple philosophy or logic and go around making claims like they are somehow proof when they are just more claims.
Lol, disprove the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy for me.
Not even close. Please read this before looking foolish again…
:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc
2 Likes
No, and that is another straw man fallacy, the fact you don’t understand this, or what it means is not a surprise to anyone reading the trolling guff you’ve been posting relentlessly for days. When you’re ready to debate, honestly, do let me know.
In the meantime each time you preach and troll it’ll get flagged. Since this is a debate forum, not a pulpit.
Who apart from you, has claimed anything came from nothing? So you’re suggesting either the universe doesn’t really exist, or that it doesn’t have any “useful” material? Or your grasp of the English language is no better than your non-existent grasp of logic.
Ad hominem fallacy.
Indeed not, but perhaps you don’t understand the hilarity of your claim, or where the missing comma should be in that sentence, in order to avoid such comedy gold.
I’m feeling charitable, so I’ll help you out, making an assertion that a deity must exist, because you believe there is no alternative is an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy.
The universe exists as an objective fact, as does sentient life, as do natural material phenomena, you are adding a deity that you can demonstrate no objective evidence exists, or is even possible, and that has no explanatory powers. this violates Occam’s razor, and has all the appearance when you’ve used it, of an argument from personal incredulity fallacy.
Address these facts (that’s the right context for the word btw) or don’t, others will simply point and laugh if you persist with your irrational disjointed rants. As of course, they should, it is pitiful nonsense, and ffs learn to use the quote function, your posts are tedious enough, without trying to guess which post you’re ranting about.
2 Likes
Those are claims, not evidence. Watch and learn…
The big bang IS EVIDENCE of wizardry.
Gravity IS EVIDENCE of wizardry.
Fusion energy IS EVIDENCE of wizardry.
Do you really imagine wizardry has just been evidenced in any meaningful way?
Nope, those people are likely rolling their eyes, I know I am.
No, you are pointing at existence, and making endless claims about it. No objective evidence has been demonstrated at all, I am dubious you understand the difference between a subjective claim and objective evidence. Your arguments have been relentlessly irrational, and your grasp of the concepts involved woefully lacking, even your use of language is execrable. It has been manifestly made clear in a very short time, that debate of any kind is beyond you.
Ironically you might learn to do so, if you stopped closed mindedly parroting irrational vapid gibberish.
2 Likes
False equivalence fallacy. We know jets are designed because we can cite objective evidence they are, we can demonstrate every stage of the designs being prepared by humans, we can demonstrate every stage of the manufacturing processes, they also don’t appear randomly in nature or through natural processes, nor does anything we have such evidence for. The universe (that we currently observe) has been traced back to a point of origin, the big bang, everything we understand about it is natural, nothing supernatural is evidenced or needed to explain it.
Try again champ…
Clearly we can add brainwashed to the growing list of words you don’t understand.
1 Like
That rang a bell.
As an engineer who has designed a few things, I pondered what I leave behind in my designs that would be indicators a human designed the thing rather than the thing just being “natural”.
I realized I first take some paper, a pencil, and a straight edge ……. Ah, straight lines are very characteristic of human design. You don’t see straight lines in nature (with a few exceptions!) Jet planes? Lots of straight lines!!
What about the 3rd dimensional equivalent – flat surfaces? Yup, don’t find those in nature (with a few exceptions!) But jet planes also have those!
What about the material jet planes are made out of – aluminum. Aluminum can be found in nature, but not in the form found in airplanes. There would be no mistaking a bunch of aluminum from a fiery crash of an airplane as a human designed thing.
So what are those things in the universe that point to design? There may be a few things, but there’s a lot of stuff that seems more like a random combination of things rather than an organized effort.
Yup, if the universe is designed, then that guy needs to find another job. He’s not very good at that one!
3 Likes
Since I posted the OP all I have seen is the same tired, refuted Atheistic nonsense arguments I have been seeing for the past 2 decades. No logic or reasoning of any value what so ever. Exactly Zero.
Not even any original nonsense just the same old garbage over and over by the same brainwashed minds. Sigh.
1 Like
Gee, thanks for finally answering the most obvious question about what doctrine you affiliate yourself with. I doubt any of us thought for a second that you’re a muslim or buddhist.
Can you deduce what doctrines I might be following, if any, by reading my username? Judging a book by it’s cover? Sometimes it’s obvious, and other times not so much right?
What exactly are you trying to accomplish by continually arguing the same things over and over again? Doing so won’t ever make it real or true, only in your own mind.
You’re massively outgunned on this site, there are a LOT of very smart people who like to gather here. A lot of this stuff goes way over my head, but I’m usually able to read through most of it and get the overall meaning of the discussions.
Your blatherings have become a total waste of time.