Dear atheist Astreja, we were talking about what and how it is to prove something exist in objective reality outside our mind.


I mentioned the nose in our face, that is very easy and quick to prove, by merely in a group, each one touching his nose and the nose of everyone's else.

What about proving that there is an entity that corresponds to the concept in our mind of that entity?

How do we you and I prove the existence of such an entity?

Please do not insist that we have finished that exchange because as I recall we never did.

If you insist that it was already finished, then I request that we go there again because I like to refresh my memory, to see where I went wrong or where I was right.

This is hilarious to me because your argument, Mario, is almost as old as religion itself (well maybe not QUITE that old, but pretty fucking old). People have been arguing this first cause idea for centuries.

Mario, what you're doing is creating your own little bubble where you create the facts, concepts and ideas. Now this is fine if you're trying to, in your own mind, make sense of the idea of god and how that idea could, in some way, correlate with reality. But if you're going to propose an argument to other people you actually have to operate within the confines of REALITY.

The problem with you trying to get us to agree with your definition of god, IN CONCEPT OF COURSE, is that you can do that with anything, really. A concept merely existing means nothing.

We COULD say:

1. Unicorns, in concept, are the first and foremost creators of the universe, man and everything with a beginning.
2. Look for instances of causation in reality, outside of concepts in our mind.
3. We find many instances of causation in reality.
4. We must then infer to the first and ultimate cause.
5. We realize that the first and ultimate cause is in correlation with our concept of Unicorns (HOW CONVENIENT!)
6. Unicorns are the first and ultimate cause of all that exists.

So yea, in this little world of mine I've created, unicorns are the creators of the universe. The problem is, NO ONE ELSE thinks this about unicorns, because unicorns don't fucking exist. I'm not sure if you realize how stupid you sound or if you're now just trying to hang on to the last, dangling thread in order to save face because everyone has exposed your stupidity.

(November 7, 2016 at 5:40 pm)Mariosep Wrote: Well, I guess it's going to be a long wait for Simon to reply to my post addressed explicitly to him; he is a good poster but subservient to his bad habit of hunting fallacies, instead of doing serious genuine productive thinking on truths, facts, logic, and the history of ideas.

I was out or town for the weekend.

Sorry to inform you, but finding fallacies in arguments is the most reliable method of testing whether an argument meant to support a claim, is indeed a rational reason to believe the claim. You can't have "doing serious genuine productive thinking on truths, facts, logic" without being able to tell if an argument is valid or fallacious.

Quote:That is what I find all the time with atheists, they don't think at all, they just voice out categorical statements laced with insults and cuss words, then they already feel so smug for having produced categorical declamatory utterances, and ending up with fu**’s and sh**’s.

Here's the thing.

We have been provided with every argument for the existence of gods there are. Your inferior version of the cosmological argument is nothing new. We are not "just voicing" out categorical statements, we are demonstrating, using valid logic, why your argument is flawed.

Quote:Here, dear atheist colleagues,  enter with google these two words, existence science, and you will see God’s existence come up page after page of hits by google.

Do that and think why, instead of issuing ipse dixit utterances and spicing them with cuss language, and then feeling so smug with having said something, no matter it is so empty and all pure arbitrary declamatory utterances.

There is no such thing as 'existence science'. None of those sites (yes, I checked them all) employ the scientific method.

Quote:Please, at least from intellectual curiosity, enter the words existence science with google into the realm of internet, and see what google will turn up.

And then think why.

Why?

Because believers are desperately trying to come up with reasons for their belief that have the veneer of rationality. But in truth, they are all as fallacious as yours.

Quote:Does God Exist - Six Reasons to Believe that God is Really There - Is ...
http://www.everystudent.com/features/isthere.html
2 Before you look at the facts surrounding God's existence, ask yourself, If God does exist ... Scientists are convinced that our universe began with one enormous ...

I checked out all 6 reasons. Again, nothing we have not heard before. Mostly they are argument for ignorance.

"I can't figure out how consciousness arose, therefor god". "The universe sure looks designed, therefor god".

Quote:10 Scientists Who Claim to Have Proof about the Existence of God ...
http://www.oddee.com/item_98822.aspx
Jan 7, 2014 - Check out this list about theories and tests conducted by scientists from different fields that are intended to demonstrate the existence of God, ...

Serbians digging into Hell.

A neuroscientist claims he visited heaven while in a coma. Couldn't have possibly been hallucination caused by a his coma? Naw, must be heaven.

Even Pascal's wager. The worst justification to believe in a god ever.  

Seriously?!

Quote:Believe in God in 5 Minutes (Scientific Proof) - YouTube
▶ 5:28
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQVm8RokoBA
Aug 2, 2014 - Uploaded by Sinai Speak
His Doctorate is in two fields: Earth sciences and physics. Donate to Sinai ... Scientist found definitive proof that ...

Couldn't watch it at work, but I am willing to bet a week's salary that it does not contain any valid reasons. I will watch it late.

As for the rest, several wouldn't get to a site.

As far as Michio Kaku goes here is an article by a physicist who is also a Christian, who says that Kaku discovered no such thing.

Dear everyone who wants to interact with me on the issue God exists or not, that includes Astreja, Simon, etc.


I want us to work as to concur on what it is to prove the existence of an entity in objective reality from the concept in our mind of that entity, for example, like Bigfoot.

No need to interact with you over your various points in your messages.

When we work as to concur on the concept, that does not mean at all: that you and I are affirming already the existence of the entity corresponding to the concept we have formulated in our mind.

Please try to understand that, namely, when and as we have formulated in our mind a concept, how do we prove that there exists or does not exist in objective reality the entity outside of the concept in our mind, but corresponding to the concept in our mind?

I said this already nth times, how can we at all communicate when we don't have the concurred on concept of the thing we are talking about, much less search for its existence as to correspond to the concept in our mind?

To formulate a concept in our mind does not mean that you will produce a ridiculous concept of that entity we will search for in objective reality, like that we have the concept of a flying spaghetti monster, or an orbiting teapot in space etc.

I will already be into endless repetition trying to make you atheist colleagues here to comprehend what I am trying to succeed in making you see my point, but if your mindset is definitely and persistently into taking to ridicules right away in the very first step of how to communicate as not to talk pass each other's head, then I will just make a commentary on the debate between Russell and Copleston, and you can join me in contributing to the commentary, then I just hope that in that environment you will not insist on dwelling on ridiculous analogies.

---

Here, please atheist colleagues, read the texts in bold below, and see whether you understand what Russell is agreeing to: it is definitely not into affirmirng the existence of God.

Quote:A Debate on the Existence of God

Bertrand Russell [hereafter R:] and F.C. Copleston [hereafter C:]

C: As we are going to discuss the existence of God, it might perhaps be as well to come to some provisional agreement as to what we understand by the term "God." I presume that we mean a supreme personal Being -- distinct from the world and Creator of the world. Would you agree -- provisionally at least -- to accept this statement as the meaning of the term "God"?

R: Yes, I accept this definition.

C: Well, my position is the affirmative position that such a Being actually exists, and that His existence can be proved philosophically. Perhaps you would tell me if your position is that of agnosticism or of atheism. I mean, would you say that the non-existence of God can be proved?

R: No, I should not say that: my position is agnostic.

C: Would you agree with me that the problem of God is a problem of great importance? For example, would you agree that if God does not exist, human beings and human history can have no other purpose than the purpose they choose to give themselves, which -- in practice -- is likely to mean the purpose which those impose who have the power to impose it?

R: Roughly speaking, yes, though I should have to place some limitation on your last clause.

C: Would you agree that if there is no God -- no absolute Being -- there can be no absolute values? I mean, would you agree that if there is no absolute good that the relativity of values results?

R: No, I think these questions are logically distinct. Take, for instance, G. E. Moore's Principia Ethica, where he maintains that there is a distinction of good and evil, that both of these are definite concepts. But he does not bring in the idea of God to support that contention.

C: Well, suppose we leave the question of good till later, till we come to the moral argument, and I give first a metaphysical argument. I'd like to put the main weight on the metaphysical argument based on Leibniz's argument from "Contingency" and then later we might discuss the moral argument. Suppose I give a brief statement on the metaphysical argument and that then we go on to discuss it?

R: That seems to me to be a very good plan.

(November 7, 2016 at 6:40 pm)Mariosep Wrote: Dear atheist Astreja, we were talking about what and how it is to prove something exist in objective reality outside our mind.

First of all...

(Springy G reaches for Her Clue-By-Four™)

*BOP*

That's for continuing to use "dear" after being told that it was disrespectful.

Secondly, I am a strong agnostic.  I believe that it is impossible to definitively prove the existence of anything.  As such, I do not concern Myself with that kind of philosophical masturbatory silliness and favour pragmatism instead.  If I think something is real and can interact with it, that's sufficient evidence for My purposes.

Quote:I mentioned the nose in our face, that is very easy and quick to prove, by merely in a group, each one touching his nose and the nose of everyone's else.

What about proving that there is an entity that corresponds to the concept in our mind of that entity?

How do we you and I prove the existence of such an entity?

Exactly the same way we demonstrate the existence of noses -- By encountering it in the real world and interacting with it.

We do not generally waste time constructing philosophical arguments regarding the existence of noses, although you appear to be obtuse enough to attempt it.  As you said, we look in the mirror or touch the nose, or reach for a bottle of decongestant spray when it clogs up.

As such, there is no need to construct a philosophical argument regarding the existence of a hypothetical god.  It's either there or it isn't.  Until you can come up with physical evidence that is as compelling as the evidence for noses, you have no basis for your argument and we have nothing further to discuss.

Finally, stop spamming the Russell debate!

LOL

Every time someone tears apart his argument he just dances around it all and changes the subject.

This thread is going nowhere and I'm checking out.

(November 7, 2016 at 6:40 pm)Mariosep Wrote: I mentioned the nose in our face, that is very easy and quick to prove, by merely in a group, each one touching his nose and the nose of everyone's else.

What about proving that there is an entity that corresponds to the concept in our mind of that entity?

How do we you and I prove the existence of such an entity?

Why is a group of people required, when you can just touch your nose? Why on Earth would you need to make a logical proof that your nose exists, according to the "concept in your mind"? Are you so completely steeped in solipsism to the point where a return to reality is that difficult? Something tells me the answer is: yes, you are.

Objective reality, my friend. You should try it out. You may not like it at first due to the whole there is no real god thing; but hey, you'll get used to it.

Kind of like debating with your deaf, senile great grandmother.