(March 2, 2020 at 12:55 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: I don't think that big mo is making house calls either.

Don't you have some decency to respect other people's beliefs, since you obviously can't back up your silly insults ?

(March 2, 2020 at 11:36 am)Rahn127 Wrote: Let me try this

Bel, there is a box in front of you, sealed from every side.

Can you give me a definition of what is inside the box ?

I'll help you out a little bit.

The answer is NO, you cannot define what is inside the box until you can demonstrate that something is in fact inside the box.

You must demonstrate existence before you can assign a definition.

(March 2, 2020 at 2:34 pm)Rahn127 Wrote:

(March 2, 2020 at 11:36 am)Rahn127 Wrote: Let me try this

Bel, there is a box in front of you, sealed from every side.

Can you give me a definition of what is inside the box ?

I'll help you out a little bit.

The answer is NO, you cannot define what is inside the box until you can demonstrate that something is in fact inside the box.

You must demonstrate existence before you can assign a definition.

And if i may add: If your definition includes properties like "actus purus", you may want to demonstrate that this property is an actual, possible property.
I would at least.
Otherwise , isnt it?

(March 1, 2020 at 11:47 pm)Objectivist Wrote: There's more than just several, which is strong evidence that "God" is a product of the Human Imagination.  In fact, each believer seems to have his own personal definition which vary quite a bit.   When it comes to concepts which identify actually existing concretes, we don't find this happening.  The definition of a rock, a tree, a bridge, a snow cone, or a Rhinoceros are pretty much universal.  But, we do find this variation in "definitions" of imaginary things.

Indeed in fact believers like to move around what god means to please themselves. So my first task for any theist is to define god.
Often they seem aghast as though the concept is crystal clear and not as I find it as clear as mud. I
 don't know what a god is supposed to be, how one is supposed to have come into existence or how its supposed to do what they say it does.

Its like saying Brexit means Brexit, a nonsense and people believed it.

---

(March 2, 2020 at 2:24 pm)Klorophyll Wrote:

(March 2, 2020 at 12:55 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: I don't think that big mo is making house calls either.

Don't you have some decency to respect other people's beliefs, since you obviously can't back up your silly insults ?

If people wanted us to respect their beliefs they'd stop having such silly beliefs.

(March 2, 2020 at 2:24 pm)Klorophyll Wrote:

(March 2, 2020 at 12:55 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: I don't think that big mo is making house calls either.

Don't you have some decency to respect other people's beliefs, since you obviously can't back up your silly insults ?

Explain why it is that your or anyone else's weird superstition deserves any respect at all.

(March 2, 2020 at 2:34 pm)Rahn127 Wrote:

(March 2, 2020 at 11:36 am)Rahn127 Wrote: Let me try this

Bel, there is a box in front of you, sealed from every side.

Can you give me a definition of what is inside the box ?

I'll help you out a little bit.

The answer is NO, you cannot define what is inside the box until you can demonstrate that something is in fact inside the box.

You must demonstrate existence before you can assign a definition.

What closed box are you talking about?

I'm talking about the world we live in. We are in it. It moves and changes and we can see it.

(March 2, 2020 at 2:24 pm)Klorophyll Wrote:

(March 2, 2020 at 12:55 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: I don't think that big mo is making house calls either.

Don't you have some decency to respect other people's beliefs, since you obviously can't back up your silly insults ?

Maybe we should call big mo himself to share with us these reasons on your behalf? You either see the irony, double irony in light of your last response...or you don't. Can't help you.

(March 2, 2020 at 3:04 pm)Belacqua Wrote:

(March 2, 2020 at 2:34 pm)Rahn127 Wrote: I'll help you out a little bit.

The answer is NO, you cannot define what is inside the box until you can demonstrate that something is in fact inside the box.

You must demonstrate existence before you can assign a definition.

What closed box are you talking about?

I'm talking about the world we live in. We are in it. It moves and changes and we can see it.

Nope, that is mere reductionist scientism. It counts not. All that matters is your philoso-babble interpretation of it. YOURS. Anyone else's is irrelevant.

Thus you seem to think you can sneak in your god.

Now other god botherers sneak the god-of-the-gaps into science. And they fail every time they attempt such. And so they should.

However, you seem to have firmly planted you gap du jour upon philosophy, because you are fully aware that philosophy can neither be demonstrated true nor false.

And there is your problem. You can change the landscape as much as you wish. You can hurl philosophical terms as much as you like. It doesn't matter. You believe in a spooky man in the sky and are struggling to find some justification for such absurditiy.

Since science will not provide that, you resort to philosobabble.

Klorophyll,

I had written:  I became convinced by means of reason, Klorophyll.  I'm not a skeptic, I'm an Objectivist.

You responded:  That's not an answer, pal. Objectivism, by the way, is heavily rejected by contemporary academic philosophers.

It is in fact a direct answer to your question.  You asked me how I knew something.  The method is reason.  It's always going to be the same answer. I did not elaborate because I sensed that the question was not being asked honestly. As we'll see below, I was right.  I don't waste my time with dishonest questions.  

As for your unnamed contemporary academic philosophers, why should I consider anything they have to say since they reject reason and reality.  If you want to take your cue from them, go ahead, but watch out for those stolen concepts.  

I had written:   If by a deity you mean some kind of supernatural being, then I don't think such a thing is possible, to begin with.  The notion of the supernatural is fraught with contradictions and stolen concepts. 

You replied:  It's not fraught with anything, it's your skeptical urge that tends to overcomplicate. Once you think clearly about an omniscient, omnipotent, eternal deity, you can't find a contradiction.

Hmmm,  again you charge me with skepticism. How would one "think clearly about an omnipotent, eternal deity"  except by using one's imagination?  I can't perceive it directly and I can't infer it's existence from rationally informed premises.  All that's left to me is imagining it.  But, the imaginary is just that, imaginary.  One can ascribe any characteristics that one wants to something that one is imagining such as omniscience, omnipotence, and eternality. But how can we reliably distinguish between something that is merely imaginary and something that is real since you reject reason as a propper method?   

I wrote:  If you really want to know my reasons, you'll find them in the Objectivist Metaphysics and the Objectivist theory of concepts.

You replied:  Yeah, sure. I was even planning to call Ayn Rand herself to share with us these reasons on your behalf, but it turns out she's dead.

See, I knew you weren't really interested.

(March 2, 2020 at 2:24 pm)Klorophyll Wrote:

(March 2, 2020 at 12:55 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: I don't think that big mo is making house calls either.

Don't you have some decency to respect other people's beliefs, since you obviously can't back up your silly insults ?

Just FYI - no one is required to respect anyone else’s beliefs and declining to do so is in no way a measure of decency.

Boru