A question regarding proof

[Welsh cake]

You guys are being real idiots if you want my input.

Need your input, not want it.

[Faith No More]

Why not try and answer him directly instead of trying to second guess him? You're scared of falling into a trap? Thought so.

I answered him in post #3.

[downbeatplumb]

I think what fred is trying to say is because people will tend to believe him when he said he dreamt about a pony, there is no direct evidence for this therefore god can be real and he can expect to be believed without providing evidence.

EXCEPT

A:dreams do happen, (I dreamt about Geri Halliwell last night for some reason)
b:we can see them happen they are in the rapid eye movement stage of sleep.
c:brain wave activity can be monitered during sleep.
d:dreams are a well documented common phenomenon.
e:I'm sure you wouldnt be the only person to ever dream about ponies.

So what we have is a very oridinary claim about a common phenomenon, it does rely on the dreamer being truthful about the content of the dream but does not require extradinary proof because it is not an extradinary claim.

[The Grand Nudger]

No Fred: the pony doesn't exist objectively. As I cannot fathom anything existing that I can't kick that means it cannot exist at all. QED. Now shut the fuck up. Because I said so. OK!?!?!

The bolded part is correct. The italicized portion is pathetic. I can imagine a great many things. That I can imagine them does not mean that they exist anywhere outside of my own imagination. If everything that could be imagined were to be treated as equally true we'd be in shitload of trouble. Look at the trouble one flight of fancy (god/gods) got us into. The final part is just you being an ass, and would be more accurately rendered as "You have evidence?" Which, to you, probably sounds a lot like "shut the fuck up because I said so"...because you do not have evidence.

[fr0d0]

The italicized part is a direct quote from yourself Rhythm of course. You can imagine them, you can reason for them, you can propose something that couldn't be proven... woah - we stepped over some terrible divide where you might have to accept reason <magic rubber> please wipe that last part from your mind - you need to stay cloistered from those thoughts. </magic rubber>

Because we have something OUTSIDE of objective evidence. That doesn't mean we can't order our thoughts and draw rational conclusions. Only a fucktard materialist would ever refuse to attempt such imbecility. Surely?

[Faith No More]

Because we have something OUTSIDE of objective evidence. That doesn't mean we can't order our thoughts and draw rational conclusions. Only a fucktard materialist would ever refuse to attempt such imbecility. Surely?

I was unaware that a materialist would claim that because of materialism. Materialists know that thoughts are electrical impulses between neurons, therefore they can be ordered.

[The Grand Nudger]

A direct quote? Links or it didn't happen. That I can imagine, propose, or reason in no way means that I have to accept what you consider to be reason, even less so over evidence. Reason can help you guess, can help you to form a theory. If you want it to be a fact, you need observations, and they need to be objective. Are you hanging your hat on dreams as evidence of the immaterial?

A rational conclusion is all fine and well, a rational conclusion supported by evidence that makes predictions which are born out by observation and repeated testing and then applied to achieve practical results....is worlds better. I could give all sorts of names to a person who prefers the former over the latter, but I think "Theist" is insult enough. That being said, I still haven't seen anything even approaching rationality from theology. I suppose that's why they have different words for the concepts.

[Faith No More]

<magic rubber>

Is that like Gandalf's condom?

[Fred]

Ahahaha, this guy is mental.

Heh. Yup. Seems so. Wish I had some company. It's lonely being mental in a sea of emotional froth.

No, your dream pony doesn't exist.

This is no small point, depending how you mean this, as we will see if we can get past this phase of name-calling dodge ball.

But dreams do exist

This is interesting. Dreams exist, but my dream pony doesn't exist? How does that work, exactly?

and people dream about all sorts of things, including ponies.

Really? How do you know? You say this as if it's obvious, yet what evidence can you point to that nails it down besides their saying so? Fact is, you don't have evidence, so by definition you have taken it on faith.

You don't trust anyone who says they had a dream about a pony? You are a genuine nutcase if that's true.

Actually, I have no problem trusting someone who says they had a dream about a pony. Now here's the funny part, ED. You are happy to label me as crazy for holding such a view. Problem is, I don't hold that view. Rhythm does. See, all doing here is walking out Rhythm's pov, as expressed in another response to me:

"When I ask for evidence (and obviously base my entire world view upon evidence) ...whats the correlation to religion?"

"What we know is what can be demonstrated, end of."

So if you think it crazy to adhere to the materialist stance as specifically stated by Rhythm, so be it. But if so, it's the stance you find crazy, not me. I agree with you all the way, and even better, I can demonstrate that the stance is crazy. And the beauty of it is, it's eminently falsifiable right here on the page based upon logic and reason, the very tools you guys say you value above all else.

The true Brights around here ought to be interested in seeing if this is so or not and would encourage a fair hearing of the thesis based upon an open examination of the evidence.

That's the way science works. Or is supposed to, anyway. The dimmer bulbs who will have none of that "dispassionate analysis" foolishness, will have to stick to the name calling and other dodges employed by those whose faith is challenged.

You're free to choose which pile you want to be in. You willing to look into the telescope or not?

[fr0d0]

That I can imagine, propose, or reason in no way means that I have to accept what you consider to be reason, even less so over evidence.

Would that be why it's called subjective evidence then?

Reason can help you guess, can help you to form a theory. If you want it to be a fact, you need observations, and they need to be objective.

Objective evidence is objective evidence. I don't want or need subjective evidence to be fact. I'm quite happy that it is what it is.

a rational conclusion supported by evidence that makes predictions which are born out by observation and repeated testing and then applied to achieve practical results....is worlds better.

'Better' is a subjective opinion. Failing to attribute merit where it is deserved is surely foolish... so you'd be making some poor judgment calls as a result no doubt?

I still haven't seen anything even approaching rationality from theology.

Your refusal to consider it might possibly explain that don't you think?