(May 4, 2025 at 5:07 pm)John 6IX Breezy Wrote:

(May 4, 2025 at 4:38 pm)Belacqua Wrote: Is this the kind of thing you're thinking of? I'm curious about what you mean.

openness to evidence requires openness to possibility. 

What does "openness to possibility" mean? It has already been explained that not believing a deity is possible, is not a belief or claim a deity is impossible. I am not closed minded, I treat all claims to the same standard. 

Quote:the very act of seeking evidence for X implies that X is treated as possible. 

No it doesn't, this seems like begging the question to me. 

Quote:But of course, many here do not think the existence of God is even a possibility, and therefore I think them asking for evidence is illogical.

My threshold for possibility is simple: If a proposition is at least conceivable and coherent, and not contradictory, then I'm open to its possibility. 

Does this mean you presuppose it is possible, or that you simply don't rule it out a priori, as no one here would I suspect do either of those. I certainly would not. 

Quote:But people want me to give objective evidence for possibility itself. And I think that's a weird request. 

What's weird is coming to an atheist forum, making claims about a deity, and then expecting people not to insist you support those claims. 

Quote:So, with your boar example, I would say the possibility is already there, and the evidence you showed simply makes the case for its actuality.

If something can be demonstrated to exist, then it is demonstrably possible. 

Quote:I don't think there is such a thing as objective evidence of possibility itself, 

Of course there is, existence of X would be a pretty obvious example of objective empirical evidence that the existence of X is possible. One could demonstrate that steel is possible, by testing the process of manufacturing it. There must be countless other ways to demonstrate possibility objectively and empirically. 

Quote:possibility is abstract, it is rational rather than empirical. 

No it isn't, again the existence of an elephant is empirical evidence an elephant is possible. It literally can't exist if it is not possible. 

Quote:I would even say it's wholly subjective, it is part of your personal value judgment.

Oh dear John, of course it isn't, don't be silly. it's easy to empirically test possibility, and the results would be objectively verifiable, simply by designing a test that could be replicated, and testing to see if it produced the same results every time. The possibility that amlodipine meds will lower blood pressure, can and has been empirically tested, there is nothing subjective about the evidence.

(May 4, 2025 at 5:24 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:

(May 4, 2025 at 4:28 pm)John 6IX Breezy Wrote: You imagined that I made such a claim, btw. I was just too lazy to correct you the previous 99 times you've said it. But feel free to find the exact quote, since you hate imaginary scenarios so much. Our whole conversation has been built off your imagination, unfortunately.

Actually, in one of your replies to me, you wrote:

(May 2, 2025 at 10:03 am)John 6IX Breezy Wrote: And trust requires a context where you have good reasons to trust, but not enough to achieve certainty.

In the context you're using "faith", this quote strongly implies you believe there are good reasons to trust in your god to the point of having faith going forward, because otherwise you would not hold the faith you do. Since you do hold your faith, you're being asked to provide your reasons -- which you claim are required -- that provide the bedrock for your faith.

Thank you, I quoted that same post above, in response to his claim, now I wonder if he will retract the claim that I imagined it.

(May 4, 2025 at 5:34 pm)Sheldon Wrote: Thank you, I quoted that same post above, in response to his claim, now I wonder if he will retract the claim that I imagined it.

Surely, you implying is not the same as me claiming?

Looks like it's time to play my favorite game. Which one of these two assholes is correct.

(May 4, 2025 at 5:37 pm)John 6IX Breezy Wrote:

(May 4, 2025 at 5:34 pm)Sheldon Wrote: Thank you, I quoted that same post above, in response to his claim, now I wonder if he will retract the claim that I imagined it.

Surely, you implying is not the same as me claiming?

I didn't imply it, I quoted you saying your faith required trust, and trust required good reasons, so did @Thumpalumpacus. This is not open to debate, it's quoted above for anyone to see. I neither implied it, nor did I imagine it, as everyone can see, my paraphrase added the word many, though there was no attempt to misrepresent, but since I asked you immediately and many times afterward, to present the best reason you had, this is hardly relevant. 

If you don't have the integrity to admit I didn't make this up, then fine, but this just seems like more smoke and mirrors to deflect from your inability or unwillingness to support your claim.

(May 4, 2025 at 5:44 pm)Sheldon Wrote: I didn't imply it, I quoted you saying your faith required trust, and trust required good reasons..

And just for clarity, you think saying "trust requires a context where you have good reasons to trust, but not enough to achieve certainty" is equivalent to claiming I had many good reasons for my faith a deity exists?

(May 4, 2025 at 5:51 pm)John 6IX Breezy Wrote:

(May 4, 2025 at 5:44 pm)Sheldon Wrote: I didn't imply it, I quoted you saying your faith required trust, and trust required good reasons..

And just for clarity, you think saying "trust requires a context where you have good reasons to trust, but not enough to achieve certainty" is equivalent to claiming I had many good reasons for my faith a deity exists?

Do you imagine clipping the start of the quote, where you said faith requires trust, is going to fool anyone? When it is quoted twice above? 

I also asked, are you now saying you don't have any good reasons for your faith a deity exists?

(May 4, 2025 at 5:54 pm)Sheldon Wrote: Do you imagine clipping the start of the quote, where you said faith requires trust, is going to fool anyone? When it is quoted twice above? 

I've never uttered the phrase "faith requires trust." Can't clip what doesn't exist.

(May 2, 2025 at 10:03 am)John 6IX Breezy Wrote: This is because faith isn't blind belief, it is trust. And trust requires a context where you have good reasons to trust,

Just for the record then, and you have refused to offer a single of those reasons of course.

Now tell me I imagined this.

(May 4, 2025 at 6:01 pm)John 6IX Breezy Wrote:

(May 4, 2025 at 5:54 pm)Sheldon Wrote: Do you imagine clipping the start of the quote, where you said faith requires trust, is going to fool anyone? When it is quoted twice above? 

I've never uttered the phrase "faith requires trust." Can't clip what doesn't exist.

Semantics, you said faith is trust, and that trust required good reasons, but you won't tell us any of them.