(May 10, 2025 at 5:16 am)Belacqua Wrote: These tend to shut down discussion.

Things that tend to shut down discussion is when you and Breezy realize that you don't have any evidence that God's exist so you enter a mode of behavior where you complain that everyone is mean and stupid because they can't realize that your non-existent evidence for god is actually evidence for god.

(May 9, 2025 at 10:39 pm)Belacqua Wrote:

(May 9, 2025 at 10:12 pm)Alan V Wrote: You should talk with Belacqua.  He thinks philosophy trumps science too.

This isn't the first time you have accused me of something that is entirely different from what I actually think.

Sorry, I must have you confused with someone else.  I am getting old and forgetful.

(May 10, 2025 at 5:16 am)Belacqua Wrote:

(May 10, 2025 at 4:33 am)Sheldon Wrote: Why would you even suggest this, when I have made no such claims? Objectivity is a scale not an absolute, I have said this to you, before now. 

Clearly I would not claim something was objective evidence if it was based solely on my subjective interpretation. Though again I fail to see what this has to do with john claiming science is not evidence based, or you disputing the oxford English definition of that word?
Fine, now do you accept that the more subjective bias that can be removed from evidence, the more reliable it becomes, do you accept that this is primarily what the methods of science are designed to do? Do you accept that science requires evidence, only John has claimed this would be bad scientific practice.

If john has anything approaching objective evidence for a deity he's not shared it, nor any evidence of any kind come to that, and I asked him repeatedly to offer his best reason for holding that belief. Instead he went on a trolling spree, making ever more outrageous claims.

Good, we agree.

When you get all fighty-fighty like this it comes across as emotional. You might want to work on this in the future.

As for John's arguments, I don't speak for him.

I suggest you read the thread before making judgements, and stop once and for all putting words in my mouth, it's tedious to have break down simply sentences for you, that you've either misunderstood, or misrepresented.

I never said you speak for John's arguments. only asked why you'd interjected in my response to his claims, with what was essentially a straw man, and I will challenge claims in a debate as I feel is appropriate.  So ironically you've misrepresented what I said here again. 

Quote:You might find that people who approach these issues differently from you would be more likely to discuss them if you were less accusatory. 

Oh do read the thread there's a good chap.

Quote:You come across as though you are in some kind of comic book battle between good and evil, and you often type personal insults. These tend to shut down discussion.

You come across as an arrogant intellectual snob, so has John in this thread, that most people no longer want to respond to, physician etc etc...

(May 10, 2025 at 6:09 am)Fake Messiah Wrote:

(May 10, 2025 at 5:16 am)Belacqua Wrote: These tend to shut down discussion.

Things that tend to shut down discussion is when you and Breezy realize that you don't have any evidence that God's exist so you enter a mode of behavior where you complain that everyone is mean and stupid because they can't realize that your non-existent evidence for god is actually evidence for god.

Pretty much yes, and the irony we're being too confrontational to John, after he has sought out an atheist debate forum, with no intention of subjecting his beliefs to critical scrutiny in any open or honest way, is of course comedy gold. 

He has even admitted to another poster he was mostly trolling, but no, I am sure it was my fault that John never offered any of the good reasons he claimed to have for his faith, or that he then laughably implied, that because he hadn't explicitly mentioned his faith was in the existence of a deity, that this inference was an unfounded assumption. Maybe it is also my fault for disputing his risible claims about evidence and how atheism is defined, because I cited the Oxford English dictionary definitions for clarity.

Years ago in my very first philosophy class I had an eccentric and inspiring teacher who made a lasting impression. Instead of doing a survey course he had us read A.J. Ayer's book Language Truth and Logic, word by word and line by line. It's not a long book but we debated every bit of it and a full semester was barely long enough to do it justice.

One of the reasons he was a brilliant teacher is that he could guide us through quite extreme disagreements without having anyone get emotional or insulting. I didn't realize then how rare that is.

Ayer's book was the introduction into English of logical positivism, an attempt to purge science and philosophy of anything "subjective," and keep only those statements which could be proven empirically. I started out thinking that it was an admirable goal, but in the end we had to admit it was impossible. We didn't know about Kuhn's explication of how scientific observations are "theory laden," but that was pretty much what we came up with.

Here is a good short history of how positivism in science has come and gone:

https://www.thecollector.com/positivism-is-it-dead/

So it seems to me that setting up a kind of good-vs.-evil opposition of objective vs. subjective is too simple, and needs to be examined in a careful way. It's the sort of thing we could talk about, if we were able to talk about things in a temperate way.

(May 10, 2025 at 6:50 am)Belacqua Wrote: So it seems to me that setting up a kind of good-vs.-evil opposition of objective vs. subjective is too simple, and needs to be examined in a careful way. It's the sort of thing we could talk about, if we were able to talk about things in a temperate way.

So firstly I asked you specifically if you thought evidence, that had as much subjective bias removed as is possible, would be more reliable than evidence that has not, you never answered. 

Secondly no one is framing the debate that way, or has championed positivism that I can see, though each person is free to choose their own personal threshold for credulity, however if someone brings claims to a public debate forum, they can't just reel off those claims, and then sneer at people who ask what supports them. 

Lastly I very specifically asked John, to give the best reason he thought he had for believing a deity existed, to justify his claim he had good reasons for his faith, he refused to offer anything. 

Instead all we got was trolling, misdirection, and sophistry.

Science is demonstrably the best method we have for understanding reality, but please don't twist this into other claims, that have not been made. If you want to discuss positivism, then why not start a thread. 

If you (or anybody else) think either theism, or metaphysics has any credible arguments or evidence that Jesus was a deity made flesh, then present them, and lets take a look.

(May 9, 2025 at 10:48 pm)Paleophyte Wrote: And thus for any definition of god that is distinguishable from nothing we have:

God ---> evidence
Not evidence

Evidence for God is ubiquitous, and that's the problem with requesting it. Scripture introduces God as the entity that made all things, and life in particular. Therefore, the existence of the planet and every living cell on it is evidence consistent with the thesis. To use your template: God ---> Life on Earth. And we observe life on Earth.

But you don't actually care about whether there’s evidence, you care about which interpretive framework fits it best and to be persuaded of one over the other.

(May 10, 2025 at 8:53 am)John 6IX Breezy Wrote:

(May 9, 2025 at 10:48 pm)Paleophyte Wrote: And thus for any definition of god that is distinguishable from nothing we have:

God ---> evidence
Not evidence

Evidence for God is everywhere, and that's the problem with requesting it. 

On the contrary, if you think it is ubiquitous it should be easy to offer. 

Quote:For example, scripture introduces God as the entity that made all things, and life in particular. Therefore, the planet itself and every living cell on it is evidence consistent with the thesis. 

That's a circular reasoning fallacy, and why would I lend any credence to the creation myth in the bible? It is demonstrably at odds with objective facts, and not itself supported by any remotely objective evidence. 

Quote:To use your template: God ---> Life on Earth. And we observe life on Earth.

Again, that's just begging the question, to create a circular reasoning fallacy?

Quote:But you don't actually care about whether there’s evidence, you care about which interpretive framework fits it best and to be persuaded of one over the other.

Now before we have @Belacqua getting all self righteous again, and accusing me of being too confrontational, take a fucking look at that no true Scotsman fallacy, and ask yourself how one is to respond to such an obvious piece of sophistry? 

Given that John earlier claimed that evidence doesn't exist, only interpretation, on what grounds one wonders, is he now making this accusation, as if we ought to care about evidence when he has claimed not to, and to want to extirpate the word? Even were it to be true, which it is quite obviously not.

I wouldn't need evidence for a deity, if I already believed a deity had created everything, now would I? You can't rationally evidence claims with other unevidenced claims. What evidence can you offer that a deity created anything?

(May 10, 2025 at 8:53 am)John 6IX Breezy Wrote: Evidence for God is everywhere, and that's the problem with requesting it. For example, scripture introduces God as the entity that made all things, and life in particular. Therefore, the planet itself and every living cell on it is evidence consistent with the thesis. To use your template: God ---> Life on Earth. And we observe life on Earth.

I am living, so according to you God created me. However, I know for a fact that my parents created me. As an explanation for my being alive, my parents are sufficient.

The same or something similar is true for all of life.

How do you propose to demonstrate that God is necessary? It seems to me that you need to explain that to maintain that life is evidence for God.

(May 10, 2025 at 9:18 am)Alan V Wrote:

(May 10, 2025 at 8:53 am)John 6IX Breezy Wrote: Evidence for God is everywhere, and that's the problem with requesting it. For example, scripture introduces God as the entity that made all things, and life in particular. Therefore, the planet itself and every living cell on it is evidence consistent with the thesis. To use your template: God ---> Life on Earth. And we observe life on Earth.

I am living, so according to you God created me.  However, I know for a fact that my parents created me.  As an explanation for my being alive, my parents are sufficient.

The same or something similar is true for all of life.

How do you propose to demonstrate that God is necessary?  It seems to me that you need to explain that to maintain that life is evidence for God.

If we want to arrive at the truth of the claim why would we presuppose a deity created everything without any objective evidence, anymore than we would presuppose a deity was possible? 

The argument is demonstrably fallacious.