Extra Dimensions

[Anomalocaris]

I think Alvin Plantinga is very simple but subtle at the same time and if we don't take the point then any discussion on philosophy can't get beyond the you need to prove it.. NO YOU NEED TO PROVE IT...NOOOO YOUUUU NEEEEED TOO PROOOOVE ITTT.. and so on . If you are talking about science then I can understand the hang up.

Nothing subtle whatsoever about about claiming one ought to be given for free what one lusts after and yet lacks the ability pay for, nor about making himself feel worthy by impressing not people of discernment, but lowly impressionable yokels like you.

[Cyberman]

Like I said earlier, the question of proof and evidence only becomes a problem for someone who doesn't have any; a problem not at all resolved, merely grossly compounded, for someone who further acknowledges that there can never be any yet persists in insisting in the existence of whatever phenomenon is under discussion anyway. If that's not part of the definitions of 'irrational' and 'closed-minded', it bloody well ought to be.

[Mark 13:13]

Like I said earlier, the question of proof and evidence only becomes a problem for someone who doesn't have any; a problem not at all resolved, merely grossly compounded, for someone who further acknowledges that there can never be any yet persists in insisting in the existence of whatever phenomenon is under discussion anyway. If that's not part of the definitions of 'irrational' and 'closed-minded', it bloody well ought to be.

so now we go full circle when I say If your not trying to prove something then there is no burden of proof and with a world view that allows me to include faith as part of my experience I have no hang ups on burden of proofs and am free using the full range of my human being from the analytical to the intuitive from the objective to the subjective to make
up my mind on any issue. And for those who would therefore want to automatically hit the hot key for flying unicorns now, nowhere in that statement did I say I gave up my analytical skills or that my intuition is the only tools I use.

[Cyberman]

Now you've shifted position from assertions of belief to protestations of injured faith. I do wish you would pick which arena in which to enter battle and then stick to the decision. As to your final point, I wouldn't presume to say that you have given up your analytical tools; merely that you are very and carefully selective about when you apply them.

[Mark 13:13]

Now you've shifted position from assertions of belief to protestations of injured faith. I do wish you would pick which arena in which to enter battle and then stick to the decision. As to your final point, I wouldn't presume to say that you have given up your analytical tools; merely that you are very and carefully selective about when you apply them.

OH well tbh the only real comments I aimed at you were to highlight the Burden of Faith I dismiss for reasons outlined before and every time it comes up I will basically answer "no I don't" the rest was for others who have a habit of jumping in with the usual tripe about "flying maneating snails" which after a while does get a bit wearing and old. But there was something we were supposed to try and start a new thread on but I can't remember exactly as it was late and I was stretched on a few threads.
What was it?

[Cyberman]

The only reason the tripe (as you think of it) comes up - apologies for the unintentional emetic imagery, especially if anyone's eating - is to illustrate where the burden of proof lies in regards to making a claim. You're quite right, it does indeed get wearying and old; the fact that you acknowledge this, along with acknowledging the ludicrousness of trying to shift that burden as a means of shoehorning any old shit into uncontested consideration, is very revealing.

As to this thread you want to start: to my recollection, it was something about how do you tell the difference between a false prophet and a 'genuinely' god-powered one with 'real' revelations. If you're genuinely interested, you could always do a search of my and your own posts. You know - just like I'd have had to do.

[pocaracas]

Here's how it is.
For you, Mark, faith may be enough. You believe in your favorite sky-daddy and you're happy with it. done deal.

But when you come here and try to convince non-believers that that sky-daddy exists, you need to prove it to us. We just won't take your word for it, no matter how many words you use.

And if you're not here to try to convince us, then why are you here?

[Mark 13:13]

The only reason the tripe (as you think of it) comes up - apologies for the unintentional emetic imagery - is to illustrate where the burden of proof lies in regards to making a claim. You're quite right, it does indeed get wearying and old; the fact that you acknowledge this, along with acknowledging the ludicrousness of trying to shift that burden as a means of shoehorning any old shit into uncontested consideration, is very revealing.

As to this thread you want to start: to my recollection, it was something about how do you tell the difference between a false prophet and a 'genuinely' god-powered one with 'real' revelations. If you're genuinely interested, you could always do a search of my and your own posts. You know - just like I'd have had to do.

I thought it was something like that but I was more lazy than disinterested and I know its gonna be hard work ; but i'm learning a lot on this forum as i'm forced to go and read up more as I go along. I will start it now but I may not get stuck in till tomorrow.

[KichigaiNeko]

So we have ignorant xtians coming to an atheist forum to get educated about their own religion??







That's one for the books Mark

[Mark 13:13]

Here's how it is.
For you, Mark, faith may be enough. You believe in your favorite sky-daddy and you're happy with it. done deal.

But when you come here and try to convince non-believers that that sky-daddy exists, you need to prove it to us. We just won't take your word for it, no matter how many words you use.

And if you're not here to try to convince us, then why are you here?

already answered before but again to show that someone can hold the opposite view and to show , not prove , that it is a valid point of view within a framework that's not chained to "scientific method" which is not the best tool to deal with the Transendental or even philosophical.

---

So we have ignorant xtians coming to an atheist forum to get educated about their own religion??







That's one for the books Mark

It may seem a strange idea that you can learn a lot by looking at something from a different angle or that you can strengthen your position by dealing with the arguements against it.