Proof that God exists

[The Grand Nudger]

Now you're telling me about some conversation -with- me that I wasn't there for.  Does that happen often? Are these imagined conversations limited to me and the subjects of evolutionary biology and science, or do you have them often, with others...about all manner of other things?

In short, do you often walk away from some conversation thinking that the other guy told you that he just didn;t "get" your obviously brilliant comments?

[vulcanlogician]

I don't know how to make it more clear.  Ok, I posit x.  Now I will seek evidence that confirms x is true.  The funny part is x = all scientific inquiry begins with confirmation bias.

The seeking of evidence to support the idea that all seeking of evidence is to support an idea.. that is, itself, confirmation bias.

Read John Locke's Essay Concerning Human Understanding . In it Locke uses LOGIC to support the epistemological value of empiricism--not evidence.

Are you an atheist?

Yes. I do not believe in gods.

If yes, then are you advocating atheism?  If yes, then are you seeking evidence to disprove atheism?  If yes, then you are my new best friend because you are the one person on earth who is really objective.  But if you're objective, then why are you advocating anything?  

I don't believe in gods. I feel confident in my conclusion about gods, but I don't advocate atheism per se. I advocate a plurality of ideas. A Socratic agora, if you will.

If you're objective, then why aren't you agnostic?  The instant you think you know something, you can no longer be objective.  If you were objective, then you'd not be able to know.

I am somewhat agnostic. But I draw conclusions, and I have what Khem calls "provisional certitude." I also think my beliefs don't amount to shit if they can't survive scrutiny. So I do my best to challenge my assumptions. Philosophy is my favorite method for doing this.

I disagree. Objective people can know things. Why do you think otherwise?

Have you ever studied ancient Greek skepticism? I think you'd like it.

[Agnosty]

Now you're telling me about some conversation -with- me that I wasn't there for.  Does that happen often?

In that case, perhaps you should inquire with your doctor concerning the onset of dementia.  They may have some effective treatments to restore memory or at least slow the loss of cognition.

In short, do you often walk away from some conversation thinking that the other guy told you that he just didn;t "get" your obviously brilliant comments?

When he admits it, I suppose so.  What else?

You said, "What I see is [unproven allegations concerning the definitions of words]" which means you do not understand what you were reading, and instead of ascertaining clarity of definitions, you instead pat yourself on the back for not being able to understand.

Your method of science appears to be, not refuting the argument, but attacking the arguer and labeling as "incompetent".  The reason for that can only be that you are unable to refute the argument and cannot admit defeat (ego).  That is why Socrates said "Slander is the tool of the loser."  And it's your preferred tool, evidently.

[The Grand Nudger]

You seem to have interpreted my impatience with gish galloping as an issue of my not understanding you, lol.  This is not the case.  I understand, the trouble is that you've simply been wrong. We get this all the time round hur. Most of my corrections to your assertions about evolutionary biology and science have been stock responses from years of handling the very same objections.

In effect, I simply beat other posters to the punch. While it;s certainly not your fault that you express these common misapprehensions -before- they've been pointed out to you, it most definitely -is- on you when you persist in them after that fact.

[Agnosty]

Read John Locke's Essay Concerning Human Understanding . In it Locke uses LOGIC to support the epistemological value of empiricism--not evidence.

I've read Locke before.  Eh, not super impressed.  Anyway, I'm not challenging the value of empiricism.  All I did was make a joke, which seems to be hard to understand for some reason.

I disagree. Objective people can know things. Why do you think otherwise?

How can you know something to be true and be objective at the same time?

2+2=4 is true, so are you open to other interpretations?   Are you seeking evidence to disprove the assertion?  Why would you when you know it to be true?  If you were seeking contrary evidence, then that action would be evidence that you do not know it to be true.

You can't know atheism to be true and be skeptical of it at the same time because it's a contradiction in terms and would constitute cognitive dissonance.  Either you're agnostic and you don't know for sure or you're atheist and you know for sure.

There is a lot of wisdom in not clinging to ideologies.  If nothing else, when you're wrong, it's a cinch to admit it.  But if you're married to your ideas, the divorce is rough.

Have you ever studied ancient Greek skepticism? I think you'd like it.

Maybe I would, but I usually prefer to reason on my own.

[The Grand Nudger]

I can, however, give you an example of something I don;t understand, but it would be more a convo between vulcan and I than you and I.  I don't understand the value of "challenging my positions" re atheism.  This can only mean one thing - legitimately considering fairies.  

If ever there were a proposition considered to death and DOA, it would be fairies.  The fairy proposition has been explored for so long and in such depth, and been found to be so utterly and contemptuously lacking in substance or explanatory value that it defies belief to see it still attached in virtue signaling.  As if there were some good to resurrecting the corpse of that failure. There are no fairies, and nothing about anything else I know is effected by the vacuous proposition that fairies may exist.

---

How can you know something to be true and be objective at the same time?

Knowledge explicitly demands objectivity.  If you know it, you can show it.  If you can't show it, it's not objective..and therefore is not knowledge.  More properly, it is a belief.

Fun with words: The objective is to determine the existence of bigfoot. To that end we have deployed objective investigators, in order to objectively determine whether or not this creature exists. Three uses of the term, three distinct connotations in context. All well and good. If, however, we drift back and forth between these connotations in drawing inferences between them our conclusion will be fundamentally uninformative due to textbook equivocation. Or, in other words...being bad at words.

[Agnosty]

You seem to have interpreted my impatience with gish galloping as an issue of my not understanding you, lol.  This is not the case.  I understand, the trouble is that you've simply been wrong.  We get this all the time round hur.  Most of my corrections to your assertions about evolutionary biology and science have been stock responses from years of handling the very same objections.

In effect, I simply beat other posters to the punch.  While it;s certainly not your fault that you express these common misapprehensions -before- they've been pointed out to you, it most definitely -is- on you when you persist in them after that fact.

See???  More ad homs.  Can't you post even one time without redirection of attention onto how stupid I am?  Don't you see how that removes credibility from your position?

Whether it's me or some other guys, the same rules apply.  Once you begin throwing mud, you're wasting your time because you'll win no one over.

Can you imagine reading pubmed and the first line you read is the author taking a shot at another scientist?  What would you think of that?

"Khemikal et al made a claim that conflicted with our world view through a clear demonstration of incompetence and we seek to disprove that idiotic result utilizing the follow methods..."

Academia would be reduced to a pissing contest... much like this thread  

[LadyForCamus]

Agnosty, what are your beliefs about god, exactly?

[vulcanlogician]

Agnosty, what are your beliefs about god, exactly?

2+2=9

[The Grand Nudger]

See???  More ad homs.  Can't you post even one time without redirection of attention onto how stupid I am?  Don't you see how that removes credibility from your position?

Not really..but that actually -would- be an ad hom.  Imagining that "my position"..which, for reference..has been that natural and artifical selection exists.....as one example of things you take issue with..... loses credibility because I'm a huge meanie.

Me calling you an idiot is just an insult, not an ad hom...and I just might be a massive dick to know nothings.....but that doesn't mean that evolutionary biology is wrong.

Whether it's me or some other guys, the same rules apply.  Once you begin throwing mud, you're wasting your time because you'll win no one over.

You've confused me for a missionary.  I'm correcting you, not trying to win you over. When you say "I take issue with biology", you should probably be taking an issue with biology, though, rather than your novel reinterpretation of words in the face of objectively demonstrated facts. Otherwise you're just spouting off gibberish. The proposition that there is no such thing as artificial selection is gibberish, not an issue with biology. We know that there;s such a thing. We've seen it, we do it, it demonstrably and objectively exists exactly as stated. That consciousness is selectively neutral, another of your "issues" with biology is..similarly, gibberish. We see the massive advantage that conscious life has over non-conscious life..we possess it, it can be demonstrated to exist. That evolutionary development does not require teleology, again...can be objectively demonstrated - as can the position that no one tinkered with a fucking mouse to make it a mouse.

Can you imagine reading pubmed and the first line you read is the author taking a shot at another scientist?  What would you think of that?

Peer review is a much more viscious process than what you've been subjected to here.  If you tried this shit in peer review your ignorance would be briefly savaged and then you would be ignored as a crank and non-entity. I honestly doubt that anyone would publish so much as a smidgeon of your opinions on biology or science.