Hello soulcalm17

[arewethereyet]

Good lord.....that's a whole lot of words to ask the question of whether things that objectively exist would exist objectively.

Gonna go with a yes on that....?

If ya can't dazzle 'em with brilliance, baffle 'em with bullshit.

[Ivan Denisovich]

Good lord.....that's a whole lot of words to ask the question of whether things that objectively exist would exist objectively.

Gonna go with a yes on that....?

If ya can't dazzle 'em with brilliance, baffle 'em with bullshit.

Theists (and wannabe philosophers) favorite tactics.

[Sheldon]

If ya can't dazzle 'em with brilliance, baffle 'em with bullshit.

Theists (and wannabe philosophers) favorite tactics.

I thought the grandiose presentation of the long list of some of the greatest historical thinkers and philosophers who've ever existed alongside the pretentious name dropping of Plato, was pretty funny, given it was being used purely as a bare appeal to authority fallacy. I guess they didn't cover common logical fallacies in his philosophical studies? 

Though for me the real comedy gold was this claim:

Well, there are a number of very smart people who think that numbers do have existence independent of human minds. Roger Penrose, for example. 

  It took every ounce of self control I possess, not to just respond with "so fucking what?"

The insults to my intellectuality vanity were brilliant, if he'd have asked I'd have told him plainly, I am a middling intellect, with a mediocre formal education, but then I hadn't realised his Christian god only wants to convince and save post graduate philosophers. 

For the record, my ego isn't so fragile that I'd take offence, I just know an appeal to authority fallacy when I see one, and when someone is dodging questions, and evading points it just becomes a little more likely they're holding an empty bag.

[Ivan Denisovich]

I thought the grandiose presentation of the long list of some of the greatest historical thinkers and philosophers who've ever existed alongside the pretentious name dropping of Plato, was pretty funny, given it was being used purely as a bare appeal to authority fallacy. I guess they didn't cover common logical fallacies in his philosophical studies? 

Theists and wannabe philosophers love to use multitude of words to cover the fact that assertions is all they have.

As for fallacies - they were covered during my philosophical courses but I would wager that most online "philosophers" did not actually studied philosophy and it shows. Sophistry does not good argument make.

Though for me the real comedy gold was this claim:

Well, there are a number of very smart people who think that numbers do have existence independent of human minds. Roger Penrose, for example. 

  It took every ounce of self control I possess, not to just respond with "so fucking what?"

The insults to my intellectuality vanity were brilliant, if he'd have asked I'd have told him plainly, I am a middling intellect, with a mediocre formal education, but then I hadn't realised his Christian god only wants to convince and save post graduate philosophers. 

For the record, my ego isn't so fragile that I'd take offence, I just know an appeal to authority fallacy when I see one, and when someone is dodging questions, and evading points it just becomes a little more likely they're holding an empty bag.

I mostly don't bother with theists or people who are unnecessarily wordy. After all it is brevity that is the soul of the wit not verbal vomit.

[Paleophyte]

For example, do numbers exist?

Yes. There's a simple litmus test for this. Assume that all of humanity has extinguished itself in thermonuclear fire and that millions of years later raccoons have arisen as the new sentient species on this planet. Will they discover pi? Pythagorean geometry? Prime numbers? Yup. So those clearly exist independently of humanity.

God is more like a number or a concept than he is like a physical being.

While the raccoons will likely create their own gods to head up their organized superstition, Yahweh, Jesus, and Allah won't be making a second coming. The phenomenon of religious thinking is objectively real but no specific religion is.

Does justice exist?

Yup. Ask your raccoon overlords for further details but it's a necessary function of any society.

Why is it that only theologists and philosophers seem to have trouble figuring out objective reality?

[Sheldon]

---

Now I would ask you,

---

 Quran is exist.

---

It is one of the phenomena of the nature in universe, as well as others. 

---

It is impossible being made by human.

This is a statement of your religious beliefs, but not a statement of fact.  It is certainly possible, regardless of whether or not you think it's true...that any piece of literature has been made by humans.

Exactly, it is an objective fact it is possible for humans to create books and literature, we have no objective evidence any deity has ever created a book, or that they exist, or that they're even possible. The unevidenced addition of a deity violates Occam's razor.

[Belacqua]

Well, there are a number of very smart people who think that numbers do have existence independent of human minds. Roger Penrose, for example. But I suspect you will reject his conclusions since they are not based on "objective evidence" -- at least, I think this is the case. 

Another appeal to authority fallacy, so yes given you have offered nothing beyond the fallacy, I will remain dubious. 

No, an appeal to authority fallacy is when you say something like "he won the Nobel Prize, therefore he must be right." Or "he went to Harvard, therefore you have to believe him." But that's not what I'm saying. 

I'm saying that opinions differ on this subject, and that some very smart people have the opinion that numbers are real. I am not saying that because Roger Penrose believes it therefore it must be true.

I have respect for Roger Penrose, and if he gives a clear argument for a position (as he does in several YouTube videos) then I think we need to consider his position seriously. He may be wrong. But we have to admit that he knows more about the issue than you or I, and therefore listening seriously to him is reasonable. 

This is the case with all knowledgable people. If you say you're going to pull a column out of the middle of your house, and the architect says "hey, don't do that, the house will fall down," you don't reply with "APPEAL TO AUTHORITY, I'm doing it anyway." There are cases where paying attention to authority makes sense. 

It seems that you've reached the age of 58 entirely innocent of any philosophical arguments for God.

It seems you're now moving on to ad hominem fallacies, you made a claim that compelling philosophical arguments for a deity exist, I invited you to offer some, as I have not seen any, it seems they're so compelling you'd rather aim weak and irrational insults at me than just offer one, I guess people may infer what they wish from that. 

This is not an ad hominem fallacy. An ad hominem fallacy is where you say something like "He has funny hair, therefore his political opinions are wrong." Or "He went to a bad university, therefore his thesis must be incorrect." 

Pointing out that you are unaware of a particular field of study is not an ad hominem fallacy. From what you've written here, you have shown that this is true. Nor is this an insult -- people know about different fields, we all study different things. No one has the time or the interest to study everything.

[Sheldon]

Another appeal to authority fallacy, so yes given you have offered nothing beyond the fallacy, I will remain dubious. 

No, an appeal to authority fallacy is when you say something like "he won the Nobel Prize, therefore he must be right." Or "he went to Harvard, therefore you have to believe him." But that's not what I'm saying. 

Yes I am familiar with how an appeal to authority fallacy is defined, and that was textbook. You didn't offer any evidence to support your claim, just the assertion that "there are a number of very smart people who think that numbers do have existence independent of human minds. Roger Penrose, for example."

I'm saying that opinions differ on this subject, and that some very smart people have the opinion that numbers are real. I am not saying that because Roger Penrose believes it therefore it must be true.

You're saying that now, that's not what you said in your previous post though. Not that it matters, in the larger context of you evidencing any deity. 

I have respect for Roger Penrose, and if he gives a clear argument for a position (as he does in several YouTube videos) then I think we need to consider his position seriously. He may be wrong. But we have to admit that he knows more about the issue than you or I, and therefore listening seriously to him is reasonable. 

Except you presented no argument? Hence it was a bare appeal using his name and the claim the belief was shared by "some very intelligent people". Are there very intelligent people who dispute his claim? Is there a broad consensus among relevant experts to support his belief? Have these arguments been supported by any evidence, ahs it been peer reviewed etc etc...evidence see?

This is the case with all knowledgable people. If you say you're going to pull a column out of the middle of your house, and the architect says "hey, don't do that, the house will fall down," you don't reply with "APPEAL TO AUTHORITY, I'm doing it anyway." There are cases where paying attention to authority makes sense. 

You shared no knowledge though, just an appeal to authority, and are you seriously saying that the opinions of architects are not underpinned by objective evidence? 

This is not an ad hominem fallacy. An ad hominem fallacy is where you say something like

Ad hominem literally means to the person, it is fallacious when a person ignores the argument(s) someone has made, and instead attacks the person making them, as you did. 

Pointing out that you are unaware of a particular field of study is not an ad hominem fallacy.

That one is called a straw man fallacy, since I made no such claim. Now, if someone presents arguments, as I did, and you ignore those arguments, as you did, and instead make a petty insult, more than one in fact, then that is ad hominem. Here it is again for clarity:

It seems that you've reached the age of 58 entirely innocent of any philosophical arguments for God.

 Did it even occur to you that I might just not find them as compelling as you do? or did you imagine there is a consensus among philosophers that a deity or deities exist? As I suggested in the post you just answered without commenting on it, here:

Do all philosophers agree that those arguments represent a compelling reason to believe a deity exists? Plato wasn't even a monotheist was he? Which argument do find a compelling reason to believe in the Christian deity? Was it Plato's argument that "since planetary motion is uniform and circular, and since such motion is the motion of reason, then a planet must be driven by a rational soul. These souls that drive the planets could be called gods." I must say I remain dubious. 

Then there was this:

I think you are satisfied with where you are intellectually, and I'm not interested in rocking the boat. 

Again this kind of ad hominem doesn't bother me, why would it, when someone resorts to this kind of fallacious reasoning in a debate I usually infer they've exhausted their spiel. 

No one has the time or the interest to study everything.

No indeed, but it would be silly to suggest one could not doubt the claim wizards exist, just because I'd never read a Harry Potter novel . It was your claim that philosophers have made sound arguments for a deity, I stated I had never seen one, not that I had never seen any philosophical arguments for a deity, just not any I found compelling. So I invited you to present one, evidence your claim in other words. It seems this was too much of a task to educate someone as ignorant as me, at least that's what you implied. I found and quoted one by Plato, it took about ten seconds. 

Try this, what is the most compelling reason you think you have to believe a deity exists outside of the human imagination? I already asked, but it went unanswered? Anyway off to bed now...have fun everyone...

[Belacqua]

No, an appeal to authority fallacy is when you say something like "he won the Nobel Prize, therefore he must be right." Or "he went to Harvard, therefore you have to believe him." But that's not what I'm saying. 

Yes I am familiar with how an appeal to authority fallacy is defined, and that was textbook. You didn't offer any evidence to support your claim, just the assertion that "there are a number of very smart people who think that numbers do have existence independent of human minds. Roger Penrose, for example."

I'm saying that opinions differ on this subject, and that some very smart people have the opinion that numbers are real. I am not saying that because Roger Penrose believes it therefore it must be true.

You're saying that now, that's not what you said in your previous post though. Not that it matters, in the larger context of you evidencing any deity. 

I have respect for Roger Penrose, and if he gives a clear argument for a position (as he does in several YouTube videos) then I think we need to consider his position seriously. He may be wrong. But we have to admit that he knows more about the issue than you or I, and therefore listening seriously to him is reasonable. 

Except you presented no argument? Hence it was a bare appeal using his name and the claim the belief was shared by "some very intelligent people". Are there very intelligent people who dispute his claim? Is there a broad consensus among relevant experts to support his belief? Have these arguments been supported by any evidence, ahs it been peer reviewed etc etc...evidence see?

This is the case with all knowledgable people. If you say you're going to pull a column out of the middle of your house, and the architect says "hey, don't do that, the house will fall down," you don't reply with "APPEAL TO AUTHORITY, I'm doing it anyway." There are cases where paying attention to authority makes sense. 

You shared no knowledge though, just an appeal to authority, and are you seriously saying that the opinions of architects are not underpinned by objective evidence? 

This is not an ad hominem fallacy. An ad hominem fallacy is where you say something like

Ad hominem literally means to the person, it is fallacious when a person ignores the argument(s) someone has made, and instead attacks the person making them, as you did. 

Pointing out that you are unaware of a particular field of study is not an ad hominem fallacy.

That one is called a straw man fallacy, since I made no such claim. Now, if someone presents arguments, as I did, and you ignore those arguments, as you did, and instead make a petty insult, more than one in fact, then that is ad hominem. Here it is again for clarity:

It seems that you've reached the age of 58 entirely innocent of any philosophical arguments for God.

 Did it even occur to you that I might just not find them as compelling as you do? or did you imagine there is a consensus among philosophers that a deity or deities exist? As I suggested in the post you just answered without commenting on it, here:

Do all philosophers agree that those arguments represent a compelling reason to believe a deity exists? Plato wasn't even a monotheist was he? Which argument do find a compelling reason to believe in the Christian deity? Was it Plato's argument that "since planetary motion is uniform and circular, and since such motion is the motion of reason, then a planet must be driven by a rational soul. These souls that drive the planets could be called gods." I must say I remain dubious. 

Then there was this:

I think you are satisfied with where you are intellectually, and I'm not interested in rocking the boat. 

Again this kind of ad hominem doesn't bother me, why would it, when someone resorts to this kind of fallacious reasoning in a debate I usually infer they've exhausted their spiel. 

No one has the time or the interest to study everything.

No indeed, but it would be silly to suggest one could not doubt the claim wizards exist, just because I'd never read a Harry Potter novel . It was your claim that philosophers have made sound arguments for a deity, I stated I had never seen one, not that I had never seen any philosophical arguments for a deity, just not any I found compelling. So I invited you to present one, evidence your claim in other words. It seems this was too much of a task to educate someone as ignorant as me, at least that's what you implied. I found and quoted one by Plato, it took about ten seconds. 

Try this, what is the most compelling reason you think you have to believe a deity exists outside of the human imagination? I already asked, but it went unanswered? Anyway off to bed now...have fun everyone...

OK, well let's work on what you mean by "objective evidence." 

Evidence is any information which increases the credibility of a proposition. (Please let me know if you disagree with this definition.)

Suppose you go to a small town where you've never been before. You ask 100 people on the street "What's the best restaurant in town?" 99 out of the 100 people name the same restaurant. 

Do you consider this to be evidence that the restaurant is, indeed, the best in town? 

Will you reject it as "subjective" because it involves people's opinions? Will you call it an Argumentum ad populum and therefore say it must be disregarded? 

I believe that this test would provide serious evidence (not proof) that the named restaurant is indeed the best one in town.

[Silver]

Public opinion, so-called witness opinion, is subjective.