(April 4, 2009 at 5:23 am)athoughtfulman Wrote: What fallacy?

(April 4, 2009 at 5:11 am)fr0d0 Wrote: because it makes sense to me where the others don't.. not that I then don't consider, reconsider and constantly re-appraise my stance on any position.

You've summed up you're entire argument. I don't think there is any point continuing this discussion when your belief is founded on the fact that it "makes sense" to you.

I understand what you mean about it being unsubstantiated. I just wanted you to actually say what you just said. Now we've got that out of the way, I can understand why we don't see the same thing on various issues.

No your original disclaimer concerned blind statements such as "it just is" or "because that's what I believe" sort of meaningless and thoughtless justifications. I don't know if you misread me there but I said "because it makes sense". This is entirely different.. my position is the result of reasoned consideration, and not blind acceptance.

If you are saying something different now then great, I'm glad I've progressed with someone. I agree, there is no discussion on certain topics for me either. I've tried to say this but others haven't got it I honestly think.

I'm happy for you to have reached your conclusions and don't wish at all to impose on them. I'm interested in your ideas and what leads you to think what you do, as an equal.


(I hope that went some way to answering you too Adrian BTW)

I don't think it covered any of the points I mentioned. My point was about your earlier assertion about things that supposedly exist in completely different realms to our own. There simple is no evidence that these "realms" exist, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

(April 4, 2009 at 4:11 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: No your original disclaimer concerned blind statements such as "it just is" or "because that's what I believe" sort of meaningless and thoughtless justifications. I don't know if you misread me there but I said "because it makes sense". This is entirely different.. my position is the result of reasoned consideration, and not blind acceptance.

If you are saying something different now then great, I'm glad I've progressed with someone. I agree, there is no discussion on certain topics for me either. I've tried to say this but others haven't got it I honestly think.

I understand that to say "it makes sense" implies that you have thought about it a lot, that is not in question. I'm concerned with the fact that like Adrian said, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. However, I think this is where our discussion will end, because we both have different ideas about what is a sufficient reason to believe in something, that is, we validate claims via different methods.

I don't think I said 'realm'. I said dimension. Occupying the same place as us but in another dimension. As far as I know, this is the closest we can get with current language for understanding scientifically the premise. The truth statement from the Bible is that God is beyond understanding, which puts him/her outside the reach of scientific measurement.

If God is in the whole universe at once then how do you quantify him/her? It's not as easy as thinking of some old dude sitting on a cloud kind of entity.

@ thoughtful: I don't see how we use different methods to validate claims. I don't 'claim' there to be a demonstrably provable God. I claim the opposite. I rely on the same claims as you for everything science covers.

Let's try again shall we?

Quote:

(April 3, 2009 at 3:46 am)fr0d0 Wrote: There is, nor can be, proof of God's existence. Simple. Theists out.

(April 3, 2009 at 5:46 am)Kyuuketsuki Wrote: So it is valid to assume there is no god (in exactly the same way as we assume that the moon is not made of green cheese and that little green men in flying saucers are not constantly "buzzing " our Earth) until actual evidence is supplied yes?

(April 3, 2009 at 5:52 am)athoughtfulman Wrote: Why is it that anyone believing in something religious believes that their case is different to any other's? Whether it be a religion, santa claus or the green cheese you mentioned, religious people will forever insist that their belief should be bound by the same rules as anything conflicting. Surely one cannot get more delusional and unreasonable than this.

(April 3, 2009 at 4:06 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: You show me how it isn't different and I'll consider it. Meantime... why do you insist something that doesn't exist in the realm of discernible proof by definition has to be proved in the realm of discernible proof? No no, it's fine.. of course - you're logic is solid.

(April 3, 2009 at 4:06 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: CORRECTION: Why do you insist something that is claimed doesn't exist in the realm of discernible proof by definition has to be proved in the realm of discernible proof?

The answer of course is simple ... there is no evidence for that which you claim nor for any of the millions of other things similarly claimed to exist in the same or similar "realms". The only things that have EVER been reasonably confirmed to exist are those in the natural universe.

In the end it comes down to this very simple concept ... extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, you haven't provided any therefore it is safe to assume that what you claim has no (ZERO, NADA, ZIP) basis in truth and the claimant is either a fraud or deluded.

And as I have previously observed, sarcasm works much better when you actually have a valid point ... why don't you try and find one?

(April 3, 2009 at 5:49 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Nice piece of circumnavigation Kyu. Christopher Columbus would've been proud. You can't answer my point so you make up your own. Easier to argue with cliches isn't it.

(April 3, 2009 at 6:08 pm)Kyuuketsuki Wrote: Not in the slightest ... the fact is that you are unable to supply evidence (or even a convincing reason for it to be) to support the claimed existence of your god so (the real cliché) you are forced to resort to hiding your god in places that cannot be investigated. That I (or anyone else) can call you on that is simple objectivity, that you keep dodging the question simply highly (as always in this forum) you utter disingenuity.

I repeat, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, you haven't provided any therefore it is safe to assume that what you claim has no (ZERO, NADA, ZIP) basis in truth and the claimant is either a fraud or deluded.

(April 3, 2009 at 6:49 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: I'm just starting to laugh at this now. I love you Kyu. Will you have my babies?

(April 4, 2009 at 3:07 am)Kyuuketsuki Wrote: Yet another dodge ... you really are quite skilled at being disingenuous aren't you?

(April 4, 2009 at 1:09 am)athoughtfulman Wrote: Oh and have you ever noticed that people start cracking jokes when they can't directly answer a question? It seems to happen when someone is cornered.

(April 4, 2009 at 4:33 am)fr0d0 Wrote: Kyu makes no point.. what am I to do in the face of infinite quotation of the same lines? Give me a serious point and I'll try my best to answer, no problem.

(April 4, 2009 at 4:55 am)athoughtfulman Wrote: You've had countless questions asked of you and serious points raised yet you fail to give any intelligent answer. It seems to be a habit of yours to avoid any question which you can't answer. You consistently undermine intelligent discussion by turning a debate into a discussion about which point is what. Your tactics, it would seem, are to confuse rather than to educate.

(April 4, 2009 at 5:11 am)fr0d0 Wrote: You are calling me unintelligent. Notice that I never call anyone else unintelligent. This is a personal attack and not addressing any point. You repeat the same question and I keep pointing out to you the fallacy of the reasoning. You have to resort to ridicule rather than consider something outside the strict confines of discernible proof. Open your mind.

Now are you going to answer (properly) the points I have made (and I'll summarise)?

1. So it is valid to assume there is no god (in exactly the same way as we assume that the moon is not made of green cheese and that little green men in flying saucers are not constantly "buzzing " our Earth) until actual evidence is supplied yes?
   
2. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, you haven't provided any therefore it is safe to assume that what you claim has no (ZERO, NADA, ZIP) basis in truth and the claimant is either a fraud or deluded.

I will also address your "unintelligent" claim.

No, Thoughtful didn't say you were unintelligent, in essence he said you failed to give intelligent answers when faced with questions or points you don't want to deal with. This is fair criticism especially when dealing with someone as disingenuous as you and yes, that was a direct and personal criticism of you and your behaviour (one that can easily be supported from your behaviour in this forum).

Kyu

(April 5, 2009 at 6:03 am)fr0d0 Wrote: I don't think I said 'realm'. I said dimension. Occupying the same place as us but in another dimension. As far as I know, this is the closest we can get with current language for understanding scientifically the premise. The truth statement from the Bible is that God is beyond understanding, which puts him/her outside the reach of scientific measurement.

If God is in the whole universe at once then how do you quantify him/her? It's not as easy as thinking of some old dude sitting on a cloud kind of entity.

@ thoughtful: I don't see how we use different methods to validate claims. I don't 'claim' there to be a demonstrably provable God. I claim the opposite. I rely on the same claims as you for everything science covers.

Ok, you did say realm.

(April 3, 2009 at 4:06 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Meantime... why do you insist something that doesn't exist in the realm of discernible proof by definition has to be proved in the realm of discernible proof?

The truth statement from the bible is just as unverifiable as any other religious claim. Sure, it makes sense to assert that God is beyond scientific measure, and that even our best attempts to quantify him/her will fall far short.

Science covers the domain of things provable by observable, empirical evidence. Anything outside that domain is unverifiable by science, I'll give you that.

But if you believe religion is in another realm or dimension (whichever you choose), there is still the question of how to discern which religion is true.

If science cannot understand religion as a whole, then there is no demonstrable proof that any religion is true, which begs the question, is there any evidence at all to suggest your version of Christianity is true? Or will you admit that you take it as faith, at which point, like I've already said, there is no point in continuing the discussion.

(April 5, 2009 at 6:04 am)Kyuuketsuki Wrote:

1. So it is valid to assume there is no god (in exactly the same way as we assume that the moon is not made of green cheese and that little green men in flying saucers are not constantly "buzzing " our Earth) until actual evidence is supplied yes?

As I've said I can't remember how many times now, from my very first visit here, on every visit it seems.

It is entirely valid to assume that there is no God. It has to be like that for Biblical claims to be correct. You have to have a choice. It has to be unprovable.

(April 5, 2009 at 6:04 am)Kyuuketsuki Wrote:

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, you haven't provided any therefore it is safe to assume that what you claim has no (ZERO, NADA, ZIP) basis in truth and the claimant is either a fraud or deluded.

Absolutely. There can be no proof.

Is my face blue? How many times do you think I could find that I've said the same thing on this forum, yet several people keep saying I haven't answered this. Can I have this stickied or something? Perhaps I could put it in my sig. Would that be fair? Or would I be being disingenuous?

What are my extraordinary claims? I don't claim that there is actually a God that you must believe in. I state that I believe in such an existence without proof. Why should that bother you? I'm not claiming anything. I'm making a personal choice.

I think you've answered that well. I have no problem with someone who believes in God yet has no problem letting other people make their own minds up.

(April 5, 2009 at 6:28 am)athoughtfulman Wrote: Ok, you did say realm.

I was quoting you!

Throwing your statement back at you to illustrate something.

(April 5, 2009 at 6:28 am)athoughtfulman Wrote: If science cannot understand religion as a whole, then there is no demonstrable proof that any religion is true, which begs the question, is there any evidence at all to suggest your version of Christianity is true? Or will you admit that you take it as faith, at which point, like I've already said, there is no point in continuing the discussion.

I can't speak for other religions.

My rationalisations are mine alone, as are any individuals. I don't take that on faith. I take it on rational thought. I've considered the evidence and have drawn a rational conclusion. If any other conclusion became apparent I'd change my mind. I don't disregard any ideas, I consider them all.

---

(April 5, 2009 at 6:44 am)athoughtfulman Wrote: I think you've answered that well. I have no problem with someone who believes in God yet has no problem letting other people make their own minds up.

Thanks. I value your opinion.

(April 5, 2009 at 6:41 am)fr0d0 Wrote: As I've said I can't remember how many times now, from my very first visit here, on every visit it seems.

[And The Rest]

Then WHY should we treat your claims, your views as anything other than the ravings of a deluded maniac? Why are you here trying to engage us on this subject if it is so reasonable to believe what we believe? I'm not trying to be funny but why don't you go away and talk to someone who wants to people who genuinely want to engage on your fairytale rubbish?

I know why I'm here, I'm in the company of people whose views on at least one key subject (being atheists) we empathise ... why are you here and talking about some crap that has no merit whatsoever?

Kyu