But the pursuit of truth requires argument, and as far as I know that is all I am providing. — SethRy

And properly dealing with scrutiny? :brow:

I prefer it because I intuitively feel that it is more likely. — Noah Te Stroete

Yes, and I like cheese, although not as much as I like punching babies. But this isn't doing philosophy.

Thanks for the appreciation on donating blood. One time donating I was there with an autism shirt, some good friends of mine, some best friends, have an autistic son, Kenny. This man asked me about it, "Do you have an autistic child?" Then he pulled up his shirt sleeve revealing a gigantic shoulder/arm tattoo of the Autism Puzzle Piece, our symbol. His is the one with the four pieces kind of forming a square. You meet some of the best people donating blood.

Today was unreal, there was a lady nurse there from Transylvania, "Funny, I collect blood!" I told her about my Holy Cross on Mt. Rubidoux, "Everyone drinks my blood." She said their blood mobile was just at the base of Mt. Rubidoux yesterday and the donors told them to take the hike up to The Cross, she did. She said, "Is that your cross?" Yep. Then a woman, a fellow donator, asked me about the Cross, my claim of Christ (Messiah; Mashiach; Mahdi; & Melchizedek). I told her about my birthday, December 8th 1962, the Feast Day of Immaculate Conception, its connection to Hanukkah, the Miracle of the Maccabees and the festival of lights (there's a bible in Georgia flowing oil replicating that miracle), and she said, "My mother is born December 8th."

======

I suggest that anything has real being that is so constituted as to possess any sort of power either to affect anything else or to be affected, in however small a degree, by the most insignificant agent, though it be only once. I am proposing as a mark to distinguish real things that they are nothing but power. - Plato, The Sophist.

This leads us to formulate a dynamic ontology. One in which existence is the ability to act in the world. Anything that can act certainly must exist. What cannot act can never be known and would never therefore be thought of as an instance of existence. So, to exist is to be able to act. In the same way we can explain the idea of essence of what a things is by looking at the specification of it's possible acts. If something can reflect red light, it's red. If something can act like an apple then it's an apple. This gives us a very clear way of thinking about essence and existence in terms of acts and the specification of acts. It need not be any more complicated than that. dfpolis #42 Knowledge & Information. Part 6 of the knowledge series. How reality truly informs the mind on essence and existence.

And what is philosophy to you? In all of my interactions I’ve had with you I’ve yet to see you put forth an argument for any positive claim. You are adept at questioning premises in others’ positive arguments, though. However, that’s easy. My mentally ill, mentally retarded, drug addict cousin can do that. Anyone can. When are you going to START doing philosophy? You’re no better than a troll.

And what is philosophy to you? In all of my interactions I’ve had with you I’ve yet to see you put forth an argument for any positive claim. You are adept at questioning premises in others’ positive arguments, though. However, that’s easy. My mentally ill, mentally retarded, drug addict cousin can do that. Anyone can. When are you going to START doing philosophy? You’re no better than a troll. — Noah Te Stroete

Have you tried opening your eyes? I have given plenty of positive arguments on this forum. And viewing criticism as a bad thing which should be discouraged is a very unphilosophical attitude to have. It's not uncommon in those with a religions mindset, actually.

But yes, I am adept. I'm glad you noticed that. I wish I could repay the compliment.

The expert in philosophy, Dr. Dennis Polis, Ph.D. (Physics) — Daniel Cox

Aside from the fact that you appear to be suggesting an argument from authority, you wrote, "The expert in philosophy... PhD (Physics)" haha

— EnPassant

Yo...

...if someone wants to assert "they are not unknown" or that "they know GOD"...

...they bear the burden of proof.

I'm not going to ask for it, because I can consider it to be impossible. ***

In any case, you are talking in the abstract. Are you suggesting that YOU can...

a) make the assertion "At least one god exists" and prove the existence of at least one god...or...
b) Provide someone else who can do that?

***
Proving the assertion "no gods exist" IS IMPOSSIBLE.

Proving the assertion, "There is at least one god" is technically possible. A person could produce a being that could definitely be identified as a god. But, an easier task would be proving one is Napoleon.

I’m not really religious. If I were, then I’d join a church, mosque, or temple. I don’t have a problem with criticism, per se. I have a problem with people not comprehending something like abductive reasoning. I have a problem having to repeat myself because I couldn’t have said it clearer the first time. Horses are cats!

I’m not really religious. — Noah Te Stroete

I didn't say you were.

I have a problem with people not comprehending something like abductive reasoning. — Noah Te Stroete

"Abductive reasoning is a form of logical inference which starts with an observation or set of observations then seeks to find the simplest and most likely explanation for the observations".

You haven't done that, and I have a problem with people who are clueless about what "most likely" means. I'll tell you what it doesn't mean. It doesn't mean wishful thinking. It is not a feeling.

You seem to have a problem with people who know what they're talking about. I think Terrapin knows more about likelihood than me, and certainly more than you. But you just sort of dismissed his criticism, like you don't really care. You just care about your mindless yearning that there be a God. You just care about your feeling, and you care less about critical thinking, even though critical thinking is an essential part of philosophy.

You didn’t understand his position that God is not accessed through empirical observation but through subjective experience, which by definition cannot be properly relayed between individuals.

You haven't done that, and I have a problem with people who are clueless about what "most likely" means. I'll tell you what it doesn't mean. It doesn't mean wishful thinking. It is not a feeling. — S

That’s a straw man. It’s not wishful thinking. I didn’t claim that “most likely” means “wishful thinking” or that it was a feeling. I said my belief was strengthened by my intuitive feeling, and I said that “most likely” was more akin to “more elegant” and “not nonsensical”.

Who has more authority than a physicist? My Dad took my family sailing on a boat once owned by Robert Oppenheimer, "I have become the destroyer of worlds." Psychic transfer of data via a tactile bridge.

He's an authority for all the reasons I gave including him being a physicist, University of Notre Dame, and his degree in philosophy from Loyola Marymount where he won the President's Prize in philosophy, and where he studied philosophy with the Jesuits. One of whom was the Exorcist who performed the real exorcism on which the movie is based. The Holy Roman Catholic Church has a magnetic audio recording of that child speaking in ancient Aramaic, a dead language. I also mentioned his Philosophical Curriculum!

It's only fallacious if the person isn't an expert. For instance, no one is a bigger sermonizer for their belief in "atheism" than Richard Carrier and yet that louse cheated on his wife who put him through college, cheated on her numerous times with his education in "atheism." He met & screwed godless whores at "atheological" meetings. Appealing to the moral authority of Richard Carrier would be a fallacy in appealing to authority because the guy is the biggest cheater known to mankind. Can you believe he did that? It's one thing to stop loving your wife who put you through college, gave you your career as an "atheist," but to use that to bone loose women on your college educated tours, cheat on her with her own money? He turned his wife into a kind of cuck.

People are featherless bipeds!

Who has more authority than a physicist? — Daniel Cox

Physicists are only authorities in physics, only in their field of physics--not in other fields, and arguments from authority are fallacious.

That’s a straw man. It’s not wishful thinking. I didn’t claim that “most likely” means “wishful thinking” or that it was a feeling. I said my belief was strengthened by my intuitive feeling, and I said that “most likely” was more akin to “more elegant” and “not nonsensical”. — Noah Te Stroete

Funny. I know you don't literally mean "wishful thinking", but that's all you're effectively conveying.

And who cares about your belief being strengthened by your intuitive feeling? Don't you think these things through? Honestly, where is your critical thinking here? I see scant evidence of any. You do realise that the exact same thing can be said of the belief that I'm Napoleon or that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is under your bed?

And "most elegant" is just another philosophically useless judgement. It seems entirely subjective, just like your funny feeling. This isn't a matter of feeling or preference. We aren't talking about art or food. If you had any critical thinking skills, you would recognise that. And you should have just said "elegant" instead of talking about likelihood.

The belief in naturalism, what I'm hearing you put forward (reading) is synonymous with "atheism; PHYSICALISM; causal closure; epiphenomenalism; intertheoretic reductionism (exactly what you're arguing against here!); functionalism; behaviorism; & determinism (Causal; motivational; & hedonistic). Some people also lump in "mechanical" determinism. I have a complete list if you want?

Your arguments aren't even rising to the fallacious level, they're more like simple contradictions.

The belief in naturalism, what I'm hearing you put forward (reading) is synonymous with "atheism; PHYSICALISM; causal closure; epiphenomenalism; intertheoretic reductionism (exactly what you're arguing against here!); functionalism; behaviorism; & determinism (Causal; motivational; & hedonistic). Some people also lump in "mechanical" determinism. I have a complete list if you want? — Daniel Cox

You know what would be cool? If what you typed there had something to do with anything I've said. That's certainly a list of words, though.

You do realise that the exact same thing can be said of the belief that I'm Napoleon or the Flying Spaghetti Monster? — S

You would be delusional. Belief in God is not delusional.

As far as abductive reasoning goes, it IS reducible to sentiment in that it is what the community thinks and feels is the “best” explanation, whether it is a community of experts or a forum replete with atheists. It’s no wonder you are so bold around here. This place is overrun by atheists.

You would be delusional. Belief in God is not delusional. — Noah Te Stroete

You would be delusional. Belief in Napoleon and the Flying Spaghetti Monster is not delusional.

As far as abductive reasoning goes, it IS reducible to sentiment in that it is what the community thinks and feels is the “best” explanation, whether it is a community of experts or a forum replete with atheists. — Noah Te Stroete

I have very little confidence that you know what you're talking about, so I'll go with what Wikipedia says about abductive reasoning over what you've said about it.

I have very little confidence that you know what you're talking about, so I'll go with what Wikipedia says over what you've said. — S

I was deconstructing what abductive reasoning means. “Simplest”, “most likely”, and “best” at the end of all the arguing about objective standards and facts boils down to sentiments. If you can’t see that, then you’re dense.

You know what S? Why dont you go punch some more babies you baby punching serial killer. We don’t need logic and reason around these parts! Why don’t you just take your fancy facts and your accountability and basic reading comprehension and stick it up your ass, Im trying to have my feelings over here!

I was deconstructing what abductive reasoning means. “Simplest”, “most likely”, and “best” at the end of all the arguing about objective standards and facts boils down to sentiments. If you can’t see that, then you’re dense. — Noah Te Stroete

Ha! Is what you call it: "deconstructing"? I call it trying to drag rationality down to your uncritical feelings in order to bolster your belief in God. But it's not very effective. It's transparent and achieves nothing.

You know what S? Why dont you go punch some more babies you baby punching serial killer. We don’t need logic and reason around these parts! Why don’t you just take your fancy facts and your accountability and basic reading comprehension and stick it up your ass, Im trying to have my feelings over here! — DingoJones

:rofl:

Petitio Principii

God wouldn't let us believe in Him if He didn't exist.

The Vice of Vicariousness

If you can't feel any self-respect without associating yourself with a Higher Power, then for God's sake make one up!

Petitio Principii

God wouldn't let us believe in Him if He didn't exist. — TheSageOfMainStreet

Yes, that's an example of begging the question. Your statement quoted above, that is.

If you can't feel any self-respect without associating yourself with a Higher Power, then for God's sake make one up! — TheSageOfMainStreet

I'll pass.

No it doesn't, and I don't. — S

There you are. Classic, egocentric, self-centered, arrogant @S.

The existence of God has not yet been affirmed and you acknowledge it. I guess that is fair to say that I am not doing a good job proving God's existence, for my arguments, although not yet proven in this thread, are illogical, incoherent, and delusional.

And properly dealing with scrutiny? — S

Your confidence seems to just piss people off and at the same time amuse them. It's amazing.

If it helps, perhaps I can provide an example that might put things into perspective (I hope). Islam is a fairly new religion, and before it became mainstream there was essentially no "Allah", or at least none to speak of. This is not to say that Allah may not have existed prior to the development of the Islamic religion, but it's also a bit of a stretch to say that nobody knew about Allah or that his presence was not felt or recognized until the Islamic religion came about. Simply put, there should at the very least have been some knowledge or recognition of Allah even in the absence of the Islamic religion in the event that he actually does exist. Let me stress again that I am by no means trying to prove or disprove the existence of any God(s), as opposed to making the point that no one know if any God(s) does or does not exist. The example that I just gave is one way to see this, but having not seen God(s) or recognized their presence up until a certain point certainly does suggest that you don't know if God(s) exist, or if they were only said to exist after that point, such as after the development of the Islamic religion.

French Philosopher Blaise Pascal argued that evidence for God is clear to the people who are willing to believe, not because it is mutually exclusive, but because your perspective is changed when you are absorbed into tradition and belief. Whereas the evidence is also vague enough for the people who do not believe, will not understand. — SethRy

It's clear to me that the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists, and if you were only willing to believe, then it would be clear to you, too. And anyone who doesn't believe as I do just doesn't understand, given the vagueness of the evidence. — S

Is this going to get a proper response or not? You changed the subject to a different argument, and instead of addressing the logical problem, you just saw it as a personal attack and responded in kind. And then when I question why you responded in this way, instead of responding properly, I just get more personal attacks.

Yet you have the nerve to suggest that you're in pursuit of the truth. Don't you think that it's immoral to lie?