(May 3, 2025 at 9:11 pm)John 6IX Breezy Wrote:

(May 3, 2025 at 9:02 pm)Sheldon Wrote: Possibility is not granted a priori, it has to be demonstrated.

Surely, you at least have a position on it's possiblity, no? 

Yes. 

Quote:Do you think it's possible or impossible, which is it?

A deity? I have answered this several times? I shall try large emboldened CAPITAL letters one more time then:

I DO NOT BELIEVE, ANY DEITY OR DEITIES ARE POSSIBLE. 

I already gave my rationale, then again I already gave this unequivocal statement, several times???

I will also enlarge this, as you keep missing it. 

Did you manage to come up with a single reason, from the "many reasons", you claimed to have for your blind faith that a deity exists?

(May 3, 2025 at 9:18 pm)Sheldon Wrote: I already gave my rationale, then again I already gave this unequivocal statement, several times???

I must have missed your rationale.

If you agree it's conceivable, and there’s nothing contradictory or incoherent about it, then wouldn’t it follow that the idea sits—at minimum—within the realm of possibility?

Surely, you consider things possible all the time based on coherence and lack of contradiction—like the possibility of life on other planets. We don’t need actual objective evidence to accept that it’s not impossible, just that it fits within a logical framework.

Your and is showing. The list of conceivable things exceeds the contents of the list of concievable things which are conceivable and coherent, which itself exceeds the list of things that are conceivable, coherent, and actual. Which is just a whole lot of words to say the very first thing Sheldon said in response to this very question.

Get your shit together john. I don't even know why we're beating around the bush. Your god is conceivable, but not conceivable, coherent, and actual. You're going to waste everyone's time litigating all of these terms in an actual demonstration of it's paucity. Ultimately deciding what is apparent from every comment you've been making on this subject. If christ is wrong, you don't wanna be right. Christ isn't out of order...WORDS is out of order! Because that's what religious faith is......

(May 3, 2025 at 9:36 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: The list of conceivable things exceeds the contents of the list of concievable things which are conceivable and coherent, which itself exceeds the list of things that are conceivable, coherent, and actual. Which is just a whole lot of words to say the very first thing Sheldon said in response to this very question.

Why is everything such a hassle lol. All I'm asking him is to explain why he thinks it's conceivable God exists but not possible. Are these questions really worth drudging over with long repetitive paragraphs, as if your entire intellectual life depended on it? Come on now, you guys are doing too much.

Yes John. Why is everything such a hassle? Why are you bitching at other people for what you're doing? If you don't like it...stop?

I wouldn't know why Sheldon would think that, or even if sheldon does think that..which is probably a better first question....but I can give you a nice quick answer for myself. First, drop this "god" shit. You don't give a fuck about gods any more than I do. You wanna talk about christ. Christ is conceivable, but not logically possible or factually actual for a large number of reasons. The first of which being we created him. Obviously.....logically speaking, the things we've created cannot create us. We are causally prior to christ. As a matter of fact, aside from the logical impossibility....as if there needed to be more....we are actually not the product of a magic potter, but of evolutionary biology, as a matter of fact.

Very good lol

Yes, it is. Imagine my amusement when someone tries to argue for christ as if it's a rational belief founded on a strict adherence to evidentiary logic...even as they themselves invoke magic..which could logically, but perhaps not rationally, resolve such defects. Imagine my disappointment when a believer tries to tell me their faith is unremarkable, non-novel, and mundane, like some bullshit about a parachute, as they advocate for what they would deem the miraculous.

OFC I disagree with them about the case for their faith, but that's not really remarkable. What gets my goat is how they...you..in this case, shit all over it and it's reputation in the process. You see, I have nothing but contempt for believers who behave as you have on these boards, and a strong abiding respect for the faithful who understand the issues with their beliefs and affirm them with eyes wide open. Because that, to put a very fine point on it that you can find in your own magic book...is faith. Let's put a definitive point on this. You know...and you strongly identify, with the fact that your faith is at odds with all of these terms you wish to appropriate and equivocate over.

That.... is what marks it out, in your own fucking mind..as "godly". It's not normal, it's not usual, it doesn't follow the rules. Who but a god, as the fairy story puts it, in it's own words.

(May 3, 2025 at 9:26 pm)John 6IX Breezy Wrote:

(May 3, 2025 at 9:18 pm)Sheldon Wrote: I already gave my rationale, then again I already gave this unequivocal statement, several times???

I must have missed your rationale.

I doubt that, but one more time then, possibility is not granted a priori, it must be demonstrated.

Quote:If you agree it's conceivable, and there’s nothing contradictory or incoherent about it, then wouldn’t it follow that the idea sits—at minimum—within the realm of possibility?

The answer is still no, and the reasons are still the same, I can conceive of mermaids and unicorns, I do not believe they are possible, unless someone can demonstrate them to be so. Why this fact needs repeating over and over is unclear. 

Quote:Surely, you consider things possible all the time based on coherence and lack of contradiction—like the possibility of life on other planets. 

It is an objective fact that the existence of a planet where life can emerge and evolve is possible. I live on one, it has nothing to do with what I can conceive of. The probability can be measured scientifically. This is not true of deities, or the supernatural, in the generic sense, which you seem determined to cling to, the claims appear to be unfalsifiable and untestable. 

Quote:We don’t need actual objective evidence to accept that it’s not impossible, 

Who is we? I certainly need objective evidence before I believe anything is possible, the double negative is bordering on sophistry, not believing something is possible, is not the same as believing something to be impossible. You'll be telling us that atheism and agnosticism are mutually exclusive next.

It is of course irrational to believe two contradictory claims, it does not however, violate any principle of logic to DISBELIEVE two contradictory claims. This is an error in reasoning I see religious apologists make again and again, I suspect it is often intentional, in order to shift the burden of proof for their claim for an extant deity. Lane Craig has done it in public debates, but he's a clown.

(May 3, 2025 at 10:05 pm)John 6IX Breezy Wrote:

(May 3, 2025 at 9:36 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: The list of conceivable things exceeds the contents of the list of concievable things which are conceivable and coherent, which itself exceeds the list of things that are conceivable, coherent, and actual.  Which is just a whole lot of words to say the very first thing Sheldon said in response to this very question.

All I'm asking him is to explain why he thinks it's conceivable God exists but not possible. 

I have never made either of those claims, I don't believe a deity is possible, I don't believe it is conceivable a deity exists, though I can conceive of one, just as I can conceive of mermaids, or garden fairies, there's a difference between conceiving something, and conceiving that something exists, just as there is an epistemological difference between withholding belief from a claim, and making a contrary claim. One carries a burden of proof, and the other does not. 

Quote: Are these questions really worth drudging over with long repetitive paragraphs, as if your entire intellectual life depended on it? Come on now, you guys are doing too much.

If you had the integrity, to accept the answer, instead of rewording the questions to create straw men, we could have moved on ages ago. 

When will you be giving us your best (or any) reason for your faith a deity exists? You claimed to have many reasons, I asked you for the best one, yet you keep ignoring that question, and repeating the same ones to me over and over and over? Is it a secret or something?

This is pretty simple John, just create a simple syllogism that demonstrates a deity is possible. You can then give us the best reason you claimed to have, for believing a deity exists. though one assumes if you had the latter, the former becomes moot, but since you have refused to offer anything beyond the claim, who can say.

conceivable
adjective
capable of being imagined or grasped mentally.

existence
noun
the fact or state of living or having objective reality.

You see how those things differ fundamentally, and why?

I can conceive of a fully functional elephant with a beachball for a head. I can accept that such a thing is not possible.

This isn't difficult.

Boru