(December 28, 2015 at 3:04 pm)Delicate Wrote:

(December 28, 2015 at 6:41 am)robvalue Wrote: "Outside of time and space" sounds to me like "doesn't exist".

It could be outside of our timeline, sure. But if it doesn't have its own timeline, it would appear that it can't do anything. And if it is "outside of space" that implies that it has some sort of presence to actually be somewhere; in which case, whatever place that is will be a different kind of "space". If it isn't actually anywhere at all, then saying it's outside of space is irrelevant.

And, of course, it's immediately unfalsifiable. No can have evidence for or against it, it becomes a useless assumption and nothing more. How did anyone discover it except through stories?

I'm often told it's all beyond human comprehension. By a human, who has comprehended a whole lot about it.

I was going to respond to this, but you've given up.

Are you under the impression that Rob is the only person reading this thread?

(December 28, 2015 at 2:30 pm)Delicate Wrote:

(December 28, 2015 at 6:18 am)downbeatplumb Wrote: Have I gone around being an expert on Christianity? I don't think I have! I have read the shitty tome that is the bible but I would not colour myself an expert, I'm not an expert on Hinduism, Buddhism or any of the other myth based fantasies that people believe in either. When people introduce supernatural things into a thing I tend to put them all in the same box marked bullshit, show one thing that has ever in the history of the world been proved in scientifically verified tests to have a supernatural cause and I'll revisit it.
Oh and god has to either be somewhere or nowhere so I take this as an admission on your part that god is non-existent.

Don't worry, atheism falls into my bullshit category so I know what you mean.

But from your demand for evidence I take it your a devotee of scientism.

And from your implication that if something exists it has to exist somewhere, I take it you're a materialist.

Both views are unjustified at best and false at worse.

Once you get rid of these myths, you can ask more sensible questions about God.

Can you explain why you believe them?

Ok so I believe in things that can be proven, you believe in things that can't, but to you my way of sorting reality from crap by demanding evidence or proof is somehow wrong.  You do know that in the whole of history there has only ever been one way to separate what we assume to be true from reality, one way and only one way to distinguish between how we would like things to be and how they really are and that method is science. If things cannot be tested by the scientific method than you have no way to determine whether they are a real thing or not. Now add to that that I think that the idea of a god is really really stupid, begging so many questions and not providing anything of value to any part of how we view reality. Now imagine that and there are millions of people who not only believe things that can't be shown to exist but these same beliefs are actively retarding progress both scientifically and socially. 

Some sensible questions about god coming up.

1: What is god made of
2: what does it look like
3: What was the process it used to bring reality into being.  
4: Where did it get the materials.
5: Explain how a being who can apparently exist without any dimensions including time can be said to exist. 

Those will do for a start. 

Can I explain why I believe what? that part of your post was just hanging at the end with no real explanation.

(December 28, 2015 at 6:22 am)Jenny A Wrote: I suppose that there is no possible evidence of god unless he affects the world  in some demonstrable way.  If not there is nothing to debate as god is an idea no more.

Perfectly put. QFT.

(December 28, 2015 at 5:38 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote:

(December 28, 2015 at 2:30 pm)Delicate Wrote: Don't worry, atheism falls into my bullshit category so I know what you mean.

But from your demand for evidence I take it your a devotee of scientism.

And from your implication that if something exists it has to exist somewhere, I take it you're a materialist.

Both views are unjustified at best and false at worse.

Once you get rid of these myths, you can ask more sensible questions about God.

Can you explain why you believe them?

Ok so I believe in things that can be proven, you believe in things that can't, but to you my way of sorting reality from crap by demanding evidence or proof is somehow wrong.  You do know that in the whole of history there has only ever been one way to separate what we assume to be true from reality, one way and only one way to distinguish between how we would like things to be and how they really are and that method is science. If things cannot be tested by the scientific method than you have no way to determine whether they are a real thing or not. Now add to that that I think that the idea of a god is really really stupid, begging so many questions and not providing anything of value to any part of how we view reality. Now imagine that and there are millions of people who not only believe things that can't be shown to exist but these same beliefs are actively retarding progress both scientifically and socially. 

Some sensible questions about god coming up.

1: What is god made of
2: what does it look like
3: What was the process it used to bring reality into being.  
4: Where did it get the materials.
5: Explain how a being who can apparently exist without any dimensions including time can be said to exist. 

Those will do for a start. 

Can I explain why I believe what? that part of your post was just hanging at the end with no real explanation.

You believe in plenty of things you can't prove.

You believe your experience of the external world is not an illusion of your mind.

(December 28, 2015 at 6:16 pm)Delicate Wrote:

(December 28, 2015 at 5:38 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote: Ok so I believe in things that can be proven, you believe in things that can't, but to you my way of sorting reality from crap by demanding evidence or proof is somehow wrong.  You do know that in the whole of history there has only ever been one way to separate what we assume to be true from reality, one way and only one way to distinguish between how we would like things to be and how they really are and that method is science. If things cannot be tested by the scientific method than you have no way to determine whether they are a real thing or not. Now add to that that I think that the idea of a god is really really stupid, begging so many questions and not providing anything of value to any part of how we view reality. Now imagine that and there are millions of people who not only believe things that can't be shown to exist but these same beliefs are actively retarding progress both scientifically and socially. 

Some sensible questions about god coming up.

1: What is god made of
2: what does it look like
3: What was the process it used to bring reality into being.  
4: Where did it get the materials.
5: Explain how a being who can apparently exist without any dimensions including time can be said to exist. 

Those will do for a start. 

Can I explain why I believe what? that part of your post was just hanging at the end with no real explanation.

You believe in plenty of things you can't prove.

You believe your experience of the external world is not an illusion of your mind.

Yes, no one (aside from genuinely disturbed people) act as though solipsism is true. And no, as per Plantinga, we can't rationally demonstrate that solipsism isn't true -- it's simply a basic belief. Please connect the dots for me. How is belief in a god "basic" in the same sense as a belief in an actual external reality? I've mentioned this little nugget of apologetic irrationality before (whether in this or another of your threads -- not sure now) and never heard anything more on the subject.

(December 28, 2015 at 6:24 pm)Crossless1 Wrote:

(December 28, 2015 at 6:16 pm)Delicate Wrote: You believe in plenty of things you can't prove.

You believe your experience of the external world is not an illusion of your mind.

Yes, no one (aside from genuinely disturbed people) act as though solipsism is true. And no, as per Plantinga, we can't rationally demonstrate that solipsism isn't true -- it's simply a basic belief. Please connect the dots for me. How is belief in a god "basic" in the same sense as a belief in an actual external reality? I've mentioned this little nugget of apologetic irrationality before (whether in this or another of your threads -- not sure now) and never heard anything more on the subject.

So you admit not everything you believe is provable. That refutes downbeatplumb's claim.

As to whether belief in God is basic, that's a good question but immaterial to this particular conversation.

So far my point is just that not all we believe is provable.

Your point is that people believe unproven things?  We know, after all..here you are.

(December 28, 2015 at 6:32 pm)Delicate Wrote:

(December 28, 2015 at 6:24 pm)Crossless1 Wrote: Yes, no one (aside from genuinely disturbed people) act as though solipsism is true. And no, as per Plantinga, we can't rationally demonstrate that solipsism isn't true -- it's simply a basic belief. Please connect the dots for me. How is belief in a god "basic" in the same sense as a belief in an actual external reality? I've mentioned this little nugget of apologetic irrationality before (whether in this or another of your threads -- not sure now) and never heard anything more on the subject.

So you admit not everything you believe is provable. That refutes downbeatplumb's claim.

As to whether belief in God is basic, that's a good question but immaterial to this particular conversation.

So far my point is just that not all we believe is provable.

No argument from me on that point.

Whether you deem my question immaterial is irrelevant to me. In one of your threads, you were the one who posted the link to Plantinga's lecture notes, in which he lists both non-belief in solipsism and belief in a god or gods as properly "basic" (not irrational to believe even if it can't be rationally demonstrated). I assume you endorse that position, or else there would have been little point in referencing Plantinga in the first place.

I'd like to know if, in fact, you agree with Plantinga and, if so, how you justify the linkage between belief in god(s) and acceptance of an external reality as "basic" in his sense.

(December 28, 2015 at 6:49 pm)Crossless1 Wrote:

(December 28, 2015 at 6:32 pm)Delicate Wrote: So you admit not everything you believe is provable. That refutes downbeatplumb's claim.

As to whether belief in God is basic, that's a good question but immaterial to this particular conversation.

So far my point is just that not all we believe is provable.

No argument from me on that point.

Whether you deem my question immaterial is irrelevant to me. In one of your threads, you were the one who posted the link to Plantinga's lecture notes, in which he lists both non-belief in solipsism and belief in a god or gods as properly "basic" (not irrational to believe even if it can't be rationally demonstrated). I assume you endorse that position, or else there would have been little point in referencing Plantinga in the first place.

I'd like to know if, in fact, you agree with Plantinga and, if so, how you justify the linkage between belief in god(s) and acceptance of an external reality as "basic" in his sense.

I personally do find Plantinga persuasive, within his larger project.

Belief in God is indeed properly basic, in my view.

And I can lay out my reasons for why. But to do so requires groundwork.

For instance, I can't hope to convince downbeatplumb, who is convinced all legitimate knowledge must be provable. That kind of hardcore empiricism is rejected in epistemology but is popular among new atheists.

But once again, that's a different conversation than the one downbeatplumb and I are having.

Why can't you hope to convince dbp...if all he requires is proof?  Don't you have any? If you can provide neither evidence, nor proof...what was this thread all about? Seems like atheists had it exactly right.