IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 3rd December 2012, 11:37 AM   #601
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Rachel, KS
Posts: 33,127
Originally Posted by annnnoid View Post
How do we know there is a ‘something’?…because there is a you. Do we know the ultimate identity of this something? Nope. Nobody does (nobody [?] knows the ultimate identity of anything...themselves included). That’s a fact. It is simply the something that creates you.
What created the "something"?
RoboTimbo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2012, 11:48 AM   #602
annnnoid
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 1,703
Originally Posted by RoboTimbo View Post
What created the "something"?

...and that has what to do with anything?
annnnoid is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2012, 11:50 AM   #603
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Rachel, KS
Posts: 33,127
Originally Posted by annnnoid View Post
...and that has what to do with anything?
If you're unable to follow your own logic where it leads, it has to do with your assertion that something must have created us since we can't create ourselves.

What created the "something"?
RoboTimbo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2012, 11:57 AM   #604
Gawdzilla Sama
121.92-meter mutant fire-breathing lizard-thingy
 
Gawdzilla Sama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Northern St. Louis County, Missouri.
Posts: 42,180
Avalon concedes, by failing to provide evidence, that there is no evidence for any god or gods. No higher authority. So the question is moot. EOF
__________________
Guns that are instantly available for use are instantly available for misuse.
World War II Diplomatic and Political Resources
Hyperwar, WWII Military History
Buying conspiracy books is a voluntary tax on stupid.
Gawdzilla Sama is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2012, 12:04 PM   #605
GeeMack
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 7,235
Originally Posted by annnnoid View Post
.. again... nothing but argument by fallacy.

No. Pointing out that your alleged support is comprised of fallacies and lacking objectivity is a perfectly valid method for showing that you have not supported your position.

Quote:
Ever hear the one about the forest and the trees?

Yes. In this instance your mention of it is a red herring.

Quote:
Do you create you? No.
Does anybody know what does? No.
Is it under any dispute that highly reputable cognitive scientists have described what we are as being of all-but incomparably incomprehensible dimensions? No! (but somehow... these are not facts... ?????)

... so, genius... how would you describe something that has the capacity to create a thing that is described as ‘the most complex object in the known universe’ and ‘the last remaining mystery’. A thing that has the capacity to utilize a condition referred to as morality. I await your enlightenment.

That's another argument from ignorance.

Quote:
I notice that you do not seem to be able to decide whether God is admissible or not. You have frequently insisted that God has nothing to do with anything... and you just as frequently insist that a ‘higher authority’ is, by definition, God. Please indicate where this fact has been established... and then, perhaps, decide to be consistent.

I'm using plain English. You seem to be misunderstanding what I've written. Is there a better language to use to help you understand?

Quote:
Your entire fallacy-dump reduces to nothing more than the following objection:
Originally Posted by GeeMack View Post
Perhaps you could identify this "'something' that has the capacity to create the ‘most complex object in the known universe’", but given your liberal use of logical fallacies and absence of reasoned argument, I'm pretty sure you won't.

... but I did exactly that.

No, you didn't. You provided an argument from ignorance. Can we help you learn a bit about those logical fallacies, what they are, how you're misusing them, and how to avoid using them again? That is, after all, part of why we're here.

Quote:
How do we know that something creates you? A -- because you exist... and B -- because you do not possess anything remotely resembling the ability to create you. Something, therefore, must.

That's sort of a hybrid combination of a non sequitur and arguments from incredulity and ignorance.

Quote:
We can only refer to it as ‘something’ because, ultimately, we do not know anything more about it. We do not ultimately know what this universe is or how it operates and we do not know what you are or how you operate. These are facts.

Again, your misuse of the word "facts" is noted. Something you've made up in your head is not a fact.

Quote:
They are indisputable.

Incorrect again, as there appears to be some dispute.

Quote:
If you like... I can provide evidence to support these conclusions... [...]

Yet for some reason you've been unable to do just that.

Quote:
[...] but you’re a smart dude and I’m sure you understand... don’t you?

I understand you have yet to make an assertion which is supported with any more than arguments from incredulity and ignorance. What we'd be looking for here is objective evidence, something which you have neglected to include.

Quote:
... so... there is the identity of this ‘something’. How do we know there is a ‘something’?... because there is a you. Do we know the ultimate identity of this something? Nope. Nobody does (nobody [?] knows the ultimate identity of anything... themselves included). That’s a fact.

No, it is something you made up in your head. That does not make it a fact.

Quote:
It is simply the something that creates you. Perhaps a name would help: Tstcy. That is its identity. It does not require any more than that to more than satisfy by any reasonable application of logic the definition of ‘higher authority’.

Even if we were to go with your unsupported assertion that something made you, it does not follow that the "something" is a higher authority. So your argument is a non sequitur.

Quote:
That you continue to stubbornly insist that ‘higher authority’ can only mean something you insist on referring to as ‘God’ is a neurosis that perhaps you need to have attended to (especially when you just as emphatically insist that God has nothing to do with it).

I have made no such statement. You have either misunderstood what I've been writing, or your comment above is intentionally untrue. It is giving you the benefit of the doubt that I don't call you out for being a liar.

Quote:
Personally... I kind of like the name ‘God’. Johnson might do just as well though.

Hey, it's your imaginary friend. You can call it whatever you like.

Last edited by GeeMack; 3rd December 2012 at 12:06 PM.
GeeMack is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2012, 02:54 PM   #606
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
Originally Posted by annnnoid View Post
Evasion????? Really? You mean that was a serious question? You were honestly asking me to mail you a sample of ‘right and wrong’ ?!?!?!

Do…or do not…the majority of the people on this planet believe in right and wrong? Yes…or no? Do I really need to point out that the answer is yes?…and that these conclusions are formalized into the endless complexities of our legal systems?




…again…nothing but argument by fallacy. Ever hear the one about the forest and the trees?

Do you create you? No.
Does anybody know what does? No.

Is it under any dispute that highly reputable cognitive scientists have described what we are as being of all-but incomparably incomprehensible dimensions? No! (but somehow…these are not facts…?????)

….so, genius…how would you describe something that has the capacity to create a thing that is described as ‘the most complex object in the known universe’ and ‘the last remaining mystery’. A thing that has the capacity to utilize a condition referred to as morality. I await your enlightenment.

I notice that you do not seem to be able to decide whether God is admissible or not. You have frequently insisted that God has nothing to do with anything…and you just as frequently insist that a ‘higher authority’ is, by definition, God. Please indicate where this fact has been established…and then, perhaps, decide to be consistent.

Your entire fallacy-dump reduces to nothing more than the following objection:




…but I did exactly that. How do we know that something creates you? A – because you exist…and B – because you do not possess anything remotely resembling the ability to create you. Something, therefore, must. We can only refer to it as ‘something’ because, ultimately, we do not know anything more about it. We do not ultimately know what this universe is or how it operates and we do not know what you are or how you operate. These are facts. They are indisputable. If you like…I can provide evidence to support these conclusions…but you’re a smart dude and I’m sure you understand…don’t you?

…so…there is the identity of this ‘something’. How do we know there is a ‘something’?…because there is a you. Do we know the ultimate identity of this something? Nope. Nobody does (nobody [?] knows the ultimate identity of anything...themselves included). That’s a fact. It is simply the something that creates you. Perhaps a name would help: Tstcy. That is its identity. It does not require any more than that to more than satisfy by any reasonable application of logic the definition of ‘higher authority’. That you continue to stubbornly insist that ‘higher authority’ can only mean something you insist on referring to as ‘God’ is a neurosis that perhaps you need to have attended to (especially when you just as emphatically insist that God has nothing to do with it). Personally…I kind of like the name ‘God’. Johnson might do just as well though.
My mother created me.

I don't think Johnson had anything to do with it.

Last edited by tsig; 3rd December 2012 at 02:58 PM.
tsig is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2012, 03:44 PM   #607
Last of the Fraggles
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,986
Originally Posted by annnnoid View Post
Evasion????? Really? You mean that was a serious question? You were honestly asking me to mail you a sample of ‘right and wrong’ ?!?!?!

Do…or do not…the majority of the people on this planet believe in right and wrong? Yes…or no? Do I really need to point out that the answer is yes?…and that these conclusions are formalized into the endless complexities of our legal systems?
What the majority believe in is neither here nor there. I asked you to show me that right and wrong are real things as you claimed. If its so self-evident it should be trivial to do so. Legal systems do exist, laws exist. Right and wrong? Well...let's see your evidence.
Last of the Fraggles is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th December 2012, 06:51 PM   #608
Beelzebuddy
Philosopher
 
Beelzebuddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 9,800
Originally Posted by tsig View Post
My mother created me.

I don't think Johnson had anything to do with it.
I'm sure there was at least a little johnson involved.
Beelzebuddy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th December 2012, 05:37 AM   #609
DOC
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 7,959
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
No. There is no evidence of any god existing. None.

Do you have any?
Well you said any god, and Jesus is God in the flesh in the Christian religion so according to Christian beliefs if we have evidence for Jesus we have evidence for God.

Here is evidence for Jesus and thus God in the Christian religion:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...46#post5959646

http://books.google.com/books?id=PCG...0truth&f=false

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...25#post6366925

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...36#post8626336
DOC is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th December 2012, 06:31 AM   #610
zooterkin
Nitpicking dilettante
Administrator
 
zooterkin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Berkshire, mostly
Posts: 57,669
Originally Posted by DOC View Post
Well you said any god, and Jesus is God in the flesh in the Christian religion so according to Christian beliefs if we have evidence for Jesus we have evidence for God.

Here is evidence for Jesus and thus God in the Christian religion:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...46#post5959646

http://books.google.com/books?id=PCG...0truth&f=false

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...25#post6366925

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...36#post8626336
No, no it isn't. As you would know if you'd read and understood the replies in those very threads you linked to.
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.Bertrand Russell
Zooterkin is correct Darat
Nerd! Hokulele
Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232
Ezekiel 23:20
zooterkin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th December 2012, 06:34 AM   #611
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
Originally Posted by DOC View Post
Well you said any god, and Jesus is God in the flesh in the Christian religion so according to Christian beliefs if we have evidence for Jesus we have evidence for God.

Here is evidence for Jesus and thus God in the Christian religion:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...46#post5959646

http://books.google.com/books?id=PCG...0truth&f=false

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...25#post6366925

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...36#post8626336
There is evidence for Harry Potter in the Harry Potter books.
dafydd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th December 2012, 06:55 AM   #612
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Rachel, KS
Posts: 33,127
Originally Posted by DOC View Post
Well you said any god, and Jesus is God in the flesh in the Christian religion so according to Christian beliefs if we have evidence for Jesus we have evidence for God.

Here is evidence for Jesus and thus God in the Christian religion:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...46#post5959646

http://books.google.com/books?id=PCG...0truth&f=false

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...25#post6366925

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...36#post8626336
I can't tell if you're deliberately lying or really don't have the capacity to understand the arguments which have thoroughly demolished yours.

Which part of "you're conflating a mortal itinerant preacher with a divine being" don't you comprehend? We have evidence for Clark Kent, therefore Superman exists. Do you agree that Superman exists, YES or NO?
RoboTimbo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th December 2012, 06:57 AM   #613
Resume
Troublesome Passenger
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 21,844
Originally Posted by DOC View Post
Well you said any god, and Jesus is God in the flesh in the Christian religion so according to Christian beliefs if we have evidence for Jesus we have evidence for God.

Here is evidence for Jesus and thus God in the Christian religion:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...46#post5959646

http://books.google.com/books?id=PCG...0truth&f=false

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...25#post6366925

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...36#post8626336
Is your belief so weak that you'll post and re-post nonsense in an attempt to bolster it?
Resume is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th December 2012, 07:04 AM   #614
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Republic of Ireland
Posts: 23,499
Originally Posted by DOC View Post
Well you said any god, and Jesus is God in the flesh in the Christian religion so according to Christian beliefs if we have evidence for Jesus we have evidence for God.

Here is evidence for Jesus and thus God in the Christian religion:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...46#post5959646

http://books.google.com/books?id=PCG...0truth&f=false

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...25#post6366925

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...36#post8626336
Your first three links are 404 Not found, bit like god, eh?

Your last is to the neverending evidence thread, which I read in it's entirety and where you were roundly trounced, failing to produce any evidence at all.

I do not believe in your sky daddy, holy spook and rebellious chippy any more than I do Santa Claus.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...
abaddon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th December 2012, 07:48 AM   #615
jsfisher
ETcorngods survivor
 
jsfisher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 24,328
Even with evidence that Jesus existed, the "Jesus is god" part is still baseless supposition. So, no, proof of this Jesus person isn't proof of any god.
__________________
A proud member of the Simpson 15+7, named in the suit, Simpson v. Zwinge, et al., and founder of the ET Corn Gods Survivors Group.

"He's the greatest mod that never was!" -- Monketey Ghost
jsfisher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th December 2012, 05:47 PM   #616
annnnoid
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 1,703
Originally Posted by jsfisher View Post
Even with evidence that Jesus existed, the "Jesus is god" part is still baseless supposition. So, no, proof of this Jesus person isn't proof of any god.

...not really. DOC did not claim he had proof of God...he only said he had evidence to support a belief that there is such a thing. That is what the word 'evidence' means. You and the rest of the assembled skeptics may dispute the evidence, but if, for whatever reasons, you are satisfied with the evidence, then it is quite reasonable to follow it to whatever conclusions it leads to.

In this case...since the evidence is almost exclusively a function of faith... no one here really has any grounds to dispute it. You can disagree with the conclusions...but there is no way to prove them wrong.
annnnoid is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th December 2012, 06:04 PM   #617
jsfisher
ETcorngods survivor
 
jsfisher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 24,328
Originally Posted by annnnoid View Post
...not really. DOC did not claim he had proof of God...he only said he had evidence to support a belief that there is such a thing. That is what the word 'evidence' means.
No, to the contrary, he said evidence of the existence of Jesus was evidence of the existence of god.

Quote:
You and the rest of the assembled skeptics may dispute the evidence, but if, for whatever reasons, you are satisfied with the evidence, then it is quite reasonable to follow it to whatever conclusions it leads to.
If and when some evidence is presented, then this may reasonably occur.

Quote:
In this case...since the evidence is almost exclusively a function of faith... no one here really has any grounds to dispute it. You can disagree with the conclusions...but there is no way to prove them wrong.
Faith is not evidence. It is that other thing, the lack of evidence.
__________________
A proud member of the Simpson 15+7, named in the suit, Simpson v. Zwinge, et al., and founder of the ET Corn Gods Survivors Group.

"He's the greatest mod that never was!" -- Monketey Ghost

Last edited by jsfisher; 8th December 2012 at 06:06 PM.
jsfisher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th December 2012, 06:06 PM   #618
mutile
Muse
 
mutile's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 755
Originally Posted by annnnoid View Post
In this case...since the evidence is almost exclusively a function of faith... no one here really has any grounds to dispute it. You can disagree with the conclusions...but there is no way to prove them wrong.
You have no way to prove that we can't prove them wrong.
mutile is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th December 2012, 06:31 PM   #619
Resume
Troublesome Passenger
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 21,844
Originally Posted by annnnoid View Post
In this case...since the evidence is almost exclusively a function of faith... no one here really has any grounds to dispute it. You can disagree with the conclusions...but there is no way to prove them wrong.
Deleted.

Missed "function of faith."

Last edited by Resume; 8th December 2012 at 06:35 PM.
Resume is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th December 2012, 06:49 PM   #620
AvalonXQ
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 11,831
Originally Posted by mutile View Post
You have no way to prove that we can't prove them wrong.
Can you prove that?

AvalonXQ is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th December 2012, 08:27 PM   #621
annnnoid
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 1,703
Originally Posted by jsfisher View Post
No, to the contrary, he said evidence of the existence of Jesus was evidence of the existence of god.

If and when some evidence is presented, then this may reasonably occur.

Faith is not evidence. It is that other thing, the lack of evidence.

It doesn’t really matter what he said. It’s a matter of faith. Obviously, for a Christian, Jesus and God have some variety of equivalence. Jesus exists = God exists. They decide there is sufficient evidence to conclude that Jesus lived…then Jesus lived. They decide that there is sufficient evidence to conclude that Jesus is still alive…then Jesus is still alive. They decide that there is sufficient evidence to conclude that Jesus = God…then Jesus = God. It’s all faith. It doesn’t have to follow any rules, or reason, or rationality. It’s whatever they say it is.

Originally Posted by mutile View Post
You have no way to prove that we can't prove them wrong.

…knock yourself out.
annnnoid is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th December 2012, 10:32 PM   #622
annnnoid
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 1,703
I apologize for being condescending. Bad habit.

Originally Posted by GeeMack View Post
No. Pointing out that your alleged support is comprised of fallacies and lacking objectivity is a perfectly valid method for showing that you have not supported your position.

Quite so…and it therefore becomes incumbent upon me to demonstrate where your objections are flawed…which I shall proceed to do.

Originally Posted by GeeMack View Post
Yes. In this instance your mention of it is a red herring.

…not really…just a metaphor Semantics is not a sufficiently explicit field to assume that there is not more to see.

Originally Posted by GeeMack View Post
That's another argument from ignorance.

Not necessarily. It is an argument that acknowledges ignorance. I’ll avoid the word ‘fact’ in the future.

It is accurate to state that we do not possess the ability to create ourselves. It is accurate to state that there does not exist anything remotely resembling a comprehensive or definitive understanding of how we work. It is logically incoherent to expect a thing to create a thing when it is demonstrably ignorant of how the thing functions.

It is accurate to state that those who study the thing called a human being have come to various conclusions about the dimensions of this thing. Generally speaking…it is described as being singularly unique in scale and ability. The descriptions by Scott Heutel and Dan Dennet are more than metaphor…they are measurably accurate…to the degree that there exists the capacity to comprehend the measure of such things.

Is it accurate to state that we don’t know what the universe is made of or how it functions? Yes. Is it accurate to state that we don’t know what a human being is or how human beings function? Yes. Is it accurate to state that human beings did not and do not create themselves? Yes. Is it accurate to state that ‘something’ is in control of us? Yes? Why?…because we don’t know how to be and yet we still manage to happen (not to mention the fact that we will die...what kind of control does that imply?).

These are all simplifications and generalizations…but for the sake of this argument, they are reasonable and accurate descriptions of the situation.

Originally Posted by GeeMack View Post
I'm using plain English. You seem to be misunderstanding what I've written. Is there a better language to use to help you understand?

We’ll see.

Originally Posted by GeeMack View Post
No, you didn't. You provided an argument from ignorance. Can we help you learn a bit about those logical fallacies, what they are, how you're misusing them, and how to avoid using them again? That is, after all, part of why we're here.

It is not an argument ‘from’ ignorance…it is an argument of ignorance.

‘Something’ does not necessarily implicate a singular quantity. It simply means ‘the condition that we are a function of’. It is no different than the astronomers who establish that some variety of body exists…not because they can measure it directly, but because of the behavior of the surrounding conditions.

Originally Posted by GeeMack View Post
That's sort of a hybrid combination of a non sequitur and arguments from incredulity and ignorance.

Again…your adjudication of fallacies leaves something to be desired. If we see some variety of ‘reality’ functioning in some particular manner…and we can accurately establish that the ‘reality’ is not responsible for that functioning…then it is quite reasonable to conclude that something else must be. Again…it has been reasonably established that we do not possess anything like the ability to understand our own condition…let alone ‘operate’ us (create, for example, whatever it is that allows us to achieve sanity, as opposed to madness…or operate the infinite range of activity required for the functioning of a healthy body). It is therefore reasonable to conclude that some other variety of intelligence is involved apart from our own. Whether it’s singular, plural, multi-dimensional…is academic. What’s relevant is that there must be something, because it’s not us.

Originally Posted by GeeMack View Post
Again, your misuse of the word "facts" is noted. Something you've made up in your head is not a fact.

So they are accurate statements then. I’ll repeat them as such:
- We can only refer to it as ‘something’ because, ultimately, we do not know anything more about it.
- We do not ultimately know what this universe is or how it operates and we do not know what you are or how you operate.

Originally Posted by GeeMack View Post
Incorrect again, as there appears to be some dispute.

They may not be explicitly indisputable…but they are accurate.

Originally Posted by GeeMack View Post
Yet for some reason you've been unable to do just that.

"We have no idea how consciousness emerges from the physical activity of the brain and we do not know whether consciousness can emerge from non-biological systems, such as computers... At this point the reader will expect to find a careful and precise definition of consciousness. You will be disappointed. Consciousness has not yet become a scientific term that can be defined in this way. Currently we all use the term consciousness in many different and often ambiguous ways. Precise definitions of different aspects of consciousness will emerge ... but to make precise definitions at this stage is premature."

This is generally regarded as the consensus position in the international cog sci community …as confirmed by acting research scientists at the Institute for Cognitive Neuroscience, University College London.

The ‘dimensions’ of a human being:
"The human brain is the most complex object in the known universe ... complexity makes simple models impractical and accurate models impossible to comprehend," Scott Huettel of the Center for Cognitive Neuroscience at Duke University

Daniel Dennett …‘just about the last remaining mystery and the one about which we are still in a terrible muddle’

Is there a TOE...no!

Bruce Alberts………… biochemist, editor-in-chief of Science magazine, past president of the US national academy of science
“As a coauthor of a textbook in cell biology that is updated at 5-year intervals, I am painfully aware of the huge gap that remains in our understanding of even the simplest cells.”

Richard Feynman:
- I think it is safe to say that no one understands Quantum Mechanics.

- One does not, by knowing all the physical laws as we know them today, immediately obtain an understanding of anything much.

- The more you see how strangely Nature behaves, the harder it is to make a model that explains how even the simplest phenomena actually work. So theoretical physics has given up on that.


NOTE: None of these statements is definitive. They merely provide evidence that my position is reasonably accurate.


Originally Posted by GeeMack View Post
I understand you have yet to make an assertion which is supported with any more than arguments from incredulity and ignorance. What we'd be looking for here is objective evidence, something which you have neglected to include.

Your adjudication is questionable.

Originally Posted by GeeMack View Post
No, it is something you made up in your head. That does not make it a fact.

No…it’s a ‘something’ because there must be something besides us.

Originally Posted by GeeMack View Post
Even if we were to go with your unsupported assertion that something made you, it does not follow that the "something" is a higher authority. So your argument is a non sequitur.

I’ll assume that the statement ‘something else makes me / is in control of me’ is a reasonable description of human reality. I’ll also assume that it is reasonable to conclude, based on the statements above, that ‘me’ is a thing of – at this point in time – all but immeasurably vast dimensions (‘most complex object in the known universe’ and all that). Your disagreement then must concern the interpretation of the phrase ‘higher authority’.

- it creates us…therefore we are subservient to it
- creator is primary…created is secondary
- since ‘it’ actually would be this thing we refer to as ‘the most complex object in the known universe’ (that’s not us…we’re just somehow a function of that thing)…and the majority of human beings can barely claim to comprehend high school algebra, it is simply reasonable to conclude that ‘it’ is a quantity of a relatively higher order of whatever hierarchy / order there is to this continuum

Originally Posted by GeeMack View Post
I have made no such statement. You have either misunderstood what I've been writing, or your comment above is intentionally untrue. It is giving you the benefit of the doubt that I don't call you out for being a liar.

I could probably locate the relevant passage, but it don’t matter no big bunch….except to the degree that ‘higher authority’ constantly becomes reduced to ‘God’. What in hell is a ‘God’ anyway? Nobody ever seems to be able to provide anything remotely resembling an intelligible definition. Not surprisingly…nobody can be expected to. The problem is…that many think they have.

- God is a supreme being.
- God is omnipotent….omniscient…creator of this, that…etc.
- 42

What do they all have in common? None of them mean a single damn thing that anyone has the slightest capacity to realistically comprehend (though that doesn’t stop anyone from pretending they do…believers and skeptics alike).

Higher authority…on the other hand…has obvious and immediate connections to a multitude of familiar and intelligible conditions that we all encounter on a regular basis (that which is a controller…and that which is the controlled…that which is the influencer…that which is the influenced…the larger unit that encompasses the smaller unit[s]). In the case of this argument…it is simply extrapolated to an ultimate condition.
annnnoid is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th December 2012, 11:23 PM   #623
Pup
Philosopher
 
Pup's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 6,679
Originally Posted by annnnoid View Post
Is it accurate to state that we don’t know what the universe is made of or how it functions? Yes. Is it accurate to state that we don’t know what a human being is or how human beings function? Yes. Is it accurate to state that human beings did not and do not create themselves? Yes. Is it accurate to state that ‘something’ is in control of us? Yes? Why?…because we don’t know how to be and yet we still manage to happen (not to mention the fact that we will die...what kind of control does that imply?).

These are all simplifications and generalizations…but for the sake of this argument, they are reasonable and accurate descriptions of the situation.
Logical enough (though I'd disagree on "control"). It negates all of the world's religions that I'm aware of, since they claim to know at least some of these things.

Quote:
- it creates us…therefore we are subservient to it
- creator is primary…created is secondary
- since ‘it’ actually would be this thing we refer to as ‘the most complex object in the known universe’ (that’s not us…we’re just somehow a function of that thing)…and the majority of human beings can barely claim to comprehend high school algebra, it is simply reasonable to conclude that ‘it’ is a quantity of a relatively higher order of whatever hierarchy / order there is to this continuum
That's where the logic falls apart. "Create" could have many different meanings, from a sentient and deliberate creation, to a non-sentient, chaotic activity, such as an underwater rock creating random ripples in the water of a river, or gravity creating the river's flow in the first place.

There's no necessity that something be subservient to its creator, whatever "subservient" means in this context.

There's even less logic in using the terms "secondary" and "primary." In importance? In time? Where time doesn't exist normally, it can't be time, and importance doesn't make sense either: which is more important, the rock or the ripples?

"The most complex thing in the universe" also doesn't make sense, because it must be separate from the universe, not part of it. If it could exist without creating the universe it isn't part of the universe. Also, there's no evidence that what created the universe was more complex. Again: which is more complex, the rock or the ripples?
Pup is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th December 2012, 11:26 PM   #624
Beelzebuddy
Philosopher
 
Beelzebuddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 9,800
Originally Posted by annnnoid View Post
It is accurate to state that we do not possess the ability to create ourselves.
No. We create ourselves all the time. We call them children.

Quote:
It is accurate to state that there does not exist anything remotely resembling a comprehensive or definitive understanding of how we work.
No. While there's unanswered details in nearly every aspect of human study, what we do know is fairly comprehensive, certainly definitive, and a damned sight better than the must be souls or somethin' of yesteryear. "We don't know everything" is not equivalent to "we don't know anything."

Quote:
It is logically incoherent to expect a thing to create a thing when it is demonstrably ignorant of how the thing functions.
No. For example, children.

Quote:
It is accurate to state that those who study the thing called a human being have come to various conclusions about the dimensions of this thing.
I'll give you this one, but it's sort of a tautology. What would you not consider coming to a various conclusion? Even shrugging their shoulders and screwing off to Tibet to become monks counts as a conclusion.

Quote:
Is it accurate to state that we don’t know what the universe is made of or how it functions?
No. We have a pretty good idea of what it's made of at the scales where its function is observable. The issue currently plaguing physicists is wondering what what it's made of is made of, at the levels where function isn't. "We don't know everything" is NOT equivalent to "we don't know anything."

Quote:
Is it accurate to state that we don’t know what a human being is or how human beings function?
No. "We don't know everything" is NOT equivalent to "we don't know anything!"

Quote:
Is it accurate to state that human beings did not and do not create themselves?
No! They create themselves all the time! Children!

Quote:
Is it accurate to state that ‘something’ is in control of us? Yes? Why?…because we don’t know how to be and yet we still manage to happen (not to mention the fact that we will die...what kind of control does that imply?).
No! Stuff just happens! It doesn't need a divining intelligence to make it so!

Quote:
These are all simplifications and generalizations…but for the sake of this argument, they are reasonable and accurate descriptions of the situation.
No! You're 0.5 for 8. Seven misses and a near-miss.


Quote:
"We have no idea how consciousness emerges from the physical activity of the brain and we do not know whether consciousness can emerge from non-biological systems, such as computers... At this point the reader will expect to find a careful and precise definition of consciousness. You will be disappointed. Consciousness has not yet become a scientific term that can be defined in this way. Currently we all use the term consciousness in many different and often ambiguous ways. Precise definitions of different aspects of consciousness will emerge ... but to make precise definitions at this stage is premature."
I guess you've never bothered to read my responses all the times you've spammed this in the science forum. Probably you won't here either.

This quote is saying, in the exceedingly polite and formal manner that science is generally phrased in, that "consciousness" is a useless term that is a waste of time and you'd be much better off learning more about its individual components, which actually do exist.
Beelzebuddy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th December 2012, 05:31 AM   #625
DOC
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 7,959
Originally Posted by Resume View Post
Is your belief so weak that you'll post and re-post nonsense in an attempt to bolster it?
As long as people post and re-post the false statement that there is absolutely no evidence of a god, I have the right to respond and give evidence. An empty tomb of a person Christianity claims is part of the Godhead and raised from the dead is some historical evidence of a miracle resurrection indicating divinity. Skeptic Bart Ehrman said Jesus certainly existed. Jesus is part of the Godhead in the Christian religion. His tomb was empty. That is evidence of a claimed resurrection and thus divinity. It is not proof but it is evidence.

Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
Your first three links are 404 Not found...
Yeah, I see that so people can go to this link and try them from there.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...36#post8626336

Last edited by DOC; 9th December 2012 at 05:41 AM.
DOC is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th December 2012, 06:35 AM   #626
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
Originally Posted by DOC View Post
As long as people post and re-post the false statement that there is absolutely no evidence of a god, I have the right to respond and give evidence. An empty tomb of a person Christianity claims is part of the Godhead and raised from the dead is some historical evidence of a miracle resurrection indicating divinity. Skeptic Bart Ehrman said Jesus certainly existed. Jesus is part of the Godhead in the Christian religion. His tomb was empty. That is evidence of a claimed resurrection and thus divinity. It is not proof but it is evidence.



Yeah, I see that so people can go to this link and try them from there.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...36#post8626336
Where is this empty tomb?
tsig is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th December 2012, 06:43 AM   #627
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Rachel, KS
Posts: 33,127
Originally Posted by DOC View Post
As long as people post and re-post the false statement that there is absolutely no evidence of a god, I have the right to respond and give evidence.
You didn't answer my question, DOC. Is a man named Clark Kent evidence that Superman is real? YES or NO?

Quote:
An empty tomb of a person Christianity claims is part of the Godhead and raised from the dead is some historical evidence of a miracle resurrection indicating divinity.
Then you reduce the word "evidence" to mean nothing at all. Why don't you acknowledge that children being born only to suffer horrible and short lives due to disease is evidence that no god(s) exist? It's evidence, isn't it?

Quote:
Skeptic Bart Ehrman said Jesus certainly existed. Jesus is part of the Godhead in the Christian religion.
Not the Jesus Bart Ehrman was talking about. This is an outright lie on your part. Again. Why do Christians lie to make their belief more palatable to themselves? No, Jesus was a mortal itinerant preacher. Why do you worship a mortal man and think that he was the source for morals? Where did morals come from before that mortal itinerant preacher?

Quote:
His tomb was empty. That is evidence of a claimed resurrection and thus divinity. It is not proof but it is evidence.
Not really. An empty tomb is evidence that a tomb is empty. It's also evidence that there are no god(s). It isn't proof but it is evidence (with your usage of evidence), wouldn't you agree?
RoboTimbo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th December 2012, 07:53 AM   #628
catsmate
No longer the 1
 
catsmate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 30,145
Originally Posted by DOC View Post
Well you said any god, and Jesus is God in the flesh in the Christian religion so according to Christian beliefs if we have evidence for Jesus we have evidence for God.

Here is evidence for Jesus and thus God in the Christian religion:
<snip>
Posting this pathetic rubbish again doesn't help your case, even your "great authority" Ehrman doesn't believe Jesus was part of a god.
__________________
As human right is always something given, it always in reality reduces to the right which men give, "concede," to each other. If the right to existence is conceded to new-born children, then they have the right; if it is not conceded to them, as was the case among the Spartans and ancient Romans, then they do not have it. For only society can give or concede it to them; they themselves cannot take it, or give it to themselves.
catsmate is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th December 2012, 08:20 AM   #629
jsfisher
ETcorngods survivor
 
jsfisher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 24,328
Originally Posted by annnnoid View Post
It doesn’t really matter what he said.
I don't think that statement means what you think it means.

Quote:
It’s a matter of faith. Obviously, for a Christian, Jesus and God have some variety of equivalence. Jesus exists = God exists. They decide there is sufficient evidence to conclude that Jesus lived…then Jesus lived. They decide that there is sufficient evidence to conclude that Jesus is still alive…then Jesus is still alive. They decide that there is sufficient evidence to conclude that Jesus = God…then Jesus = God. It’s all faith. It doesn’t have to follow any rules, or reason, or rationality. It’s whatever they say it is.
I have no problem with a faith-based belief. None whatsoever. I do object, however, when that faith-based belief is injected into a debate as a fully-established premise or as a rational, following the rules of reason argument.

It is neither.

Your apologetics for DOC notwithstanding, what DOC says does matter. He has expanded his arsenal of vacuous arguments that god exists with "evidence of Jesus' existence is evidence of god's existence." This addition is worthless right out of the gate because of its implicit, faith-based premise.

You arguing it is a matter of faith so it can't be argued is pure nonsense, too. The discussion is not whether DOC believes something on faith--he's entitled to do that. It is whether those beliefs are admissible in a substantive debate.
__________________
A proud member of the Simpson 15+7, named in the suit, Simpson v. Zwinge, et al., and founder of the ET Corn Gods Survivors Group.

"He's the greatest mod that never was!" -- Monketey Ghost
jsfisher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th December 2012, 08:56 AM   #630
Resume
Troublesome Passenger
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 21,844
Originally Posted by DOC View Post
As long as people post and re-post the false statement that there is absolutely no evidence of a god, I have the right to respond and give evidence. An empty tomb of a person Christianity claims is part of the Godhead and raised from the dead is some historical evidence of a miracle resurrection indicating divinity. Skeptic Bart Ehrman said Jesus certainly existed. Jesus is part of the Godhead in the Christian religion. His tomb was empty. That is evidence of a claimed resurrection and thus divinity. It is not proof but it is evidence.



Yeah, I see that so people can go to this link and try them from there.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...36#post8626336
What tomb where?
Resume is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th December 2012, 08:57 AM   #631
GeeMack
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 7,235
Originally Posted by annnnoid View Post
Is it accurate to state that we don’t know what the universe is made of or how it functions? Yes. Is it accurate to state that we don’t know what a human being is or how human beings function? Yes. Is it accurate to state that human beings did not and do not create themselves? Yes. Is it accurate to state that ‘something’ is in control of us? Yes? Why?... because we don’t know how to be and yet we still manage to happen (not to mention the fact that we will die...what kind of control does that imply?).

Your conclusion does not follow. That's called a non sequitur. If you learn to recognize a non sequitur before writing it, it may help you avoid silly failed arguments like that.

Quote:
These are all simplifications and generalizations... but for the sake of this argument, they are reasonable and accurate descriptions of the situation.

Nope, that's just more gibberish. It may make you comfortable to believe you're under the control of some invisible metaphysical authority, but out here in the real world, making stuff up to fill in for what we don't know or understand isn't considered rational.

Quote:
It is not an argument ‘from’ ignorance... it is an argument of ignorance.

Yes, it is an argument from ignorance. You'd do well to familiarize yourself with the most common logical fallacies. That would help you avoid making foolish sounding comments like the one above.

Quote:
‘Something’ does not necessarily implicate a singular quantity. It simply means ‘the condition that we are a function of’. It is no different than the astronomers who establish that some variety of body exists... not because they can measure it directly, but because of the behavior of the surrounding conditions.

Yet you aren't able to demonstrate that the alleged body exists. And speculating that one thing is true because you don't understand something else is a non sequitur. Just can't help yourself spewing those nonsensical logical fallacies, can you?

Quote:
Again... your adjudication of fallacies leaves something to be desired. If we see some variety of ‘reality’ functioning in some particular manner... and we can accurately establish that the ‘reality’ is not responsible for that functioning... then it is quite reasonable to conclude that something else must be. Again... it has been reasonably established that we do not possess anything like the ability to understand our own condition... let alone ‘operate’ us (create, for example, whatever it is that allows us to achieve sanity, as opposed to madness... or operate the infinite range of activity required for the functioning of a healthy body). It is therefore reasonable to conclude that some other variety of intelligence is involved apart from our own. Whether it’s singular, plural, multi-dimensional... is academic. What’s relevant is that there must be something, because it’s not us.

No, that is not reasonable at all. You're starting with a conclusion and building an argument on ignorance, incredulity, unsound rationalizations, and some bizarre fantasy logic. When you are able to recognize that, you'll understand why you continue to fail here.

Quote:
So they are accurate statements then. I’ll repeat them as such:
-We can only refer to it as ‘something’ because, ultimately, we do not know anything more about it.

Hell, we don't even know if "it" exists, because nobody, least of all you, has been able to objectively show that it does. You've said yourself that you can't define this alleged "it", yet you're attributing it with characteristics you made up in your head. That, giving you every benefit of the doubt, is called using your imagination. Referring to something you've made up in your head as a higher authority makes for a pretty silly sounding argument.

Quote:
-We do not ultimately know what this universe is or how it operates and we do not know what you are or how you operate.

And when you jump from there to "therefore a higher authority" you're making an argument from incredulity and ignorance.

Quote:
[* Much gibberish and nonsensical rationalization for beliving in invisible magical powers snipped. *]

Here we are exactly where we were before you started writing this. You are unable to objectively demonstrate that any sort of higher authority exists. Your argument is exactly as sound as DOC's. Do note that in over 5 years and more than 7,000 posts, his failure to success ratio results in a divide by zero error.
GeeMack is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th December 2012, 02:52 AM   #632
DOC
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 7,959
Originally Posted by RoboTimbo View Post
You didn't answer my question, DOC. Is a man named Clark Kent evidence that Superman is real? YES or NO?...
I doubt academics like Bart Ehrman have ever said Clark Kent certainly existed.
DOC is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th December 2012, 03:02 AM   #633
mutile
Muse
 
mutile's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 755
Originally Posted by DOC View Post
I doubt academics like Bart Ehrman have ever said Clark Kent certainly existed.
I don't think you care about what Bart Ehrman says.
mutile is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th December 2012, 03:28 AM   #634
Mashuna
Ovis ex Machina
 
Mashuna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Sir Ddinbych
Posts: 7,001
Originally Posted by DOC View Post
I doubt academics like Bart Ehrman have ever said Clark Kent certainly existed.
Of course Clark Kent exists. There are a number of people with that name who currently exist. This is evidence (by your standards) that Superman exists.
Mashuna is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th December 2012, 06:32 AM   #635
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Rachel, KS
Posts: 33,127
Originally Posted by DOC View Post
I doubt academics like Bart Ehrman have ever said Clark Kent certainly existed.
While I appreciate that you value Bart Ehrman's opinion on the mortal itinerant preacher named Jesus, you didn't answer my question, DOC. Is a man named Clark Kent evidence that Superman exists, YES or NO?
RoboTimbo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th December 2012, 05:29 PM   #636
DOC
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 7,959
Originally Posted by RoboTimbo View Post
...you didn't answer my question, DOC. Is a man named Clark Kent evidence that Superman exists, YES or NO?
No, to your Strawman argument. I was talking about the historical evidence of an empty tomb. An empty tomb is some evidence of a reported Resurrection. It is not proof, but it is some evidence. Bottom line is in 2000 years of looking no one has found the body of the famous person (Jesus) that Bart Ehrman said "certainly existed".

Last edited by DOC; 12th December 2012 at 05:33 PM.
DOC is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th December 2012, 05:40 PM   #637
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Rachel, KS
Posts: 33,127
Originally Posted by DOC View Post
No, to your Strawman argument.
You have no clue what "strawman" means, do you? I still think you could get your money back from whoever claimed to teach you logic and you should also go for punitive damages.

So, no, a mortal person existing isn't evidence that a magical being exists having the same name. Are you going to stop using that argument now?

Quote:
I was talking about the historical evidence of an empty tomb. An empty tomb is some evidence of a reported Resurrection.
No, you were talking about Bart Ehrman's belief that an itinerant mortal preacher named Jesus existed and you conflated that with some divine being.

Quote:
It is not proof, but it is some evidence.
No, an empty tomb is evidence that a tomb is empty. Wouldn't you agree that children being born with devastating diseases is some evidence that no god(s) exist, with your usage of the word "evidence"?

Quote:
Bottom line is in 2000 years of looking no one has found the body of the famous person (Jesus) that Bart Ehrman said "certainly existed".
Makes you wonder why anyone believes a Jesus existed if we've never found a body. If a newspaperman named Clark Kent has ever existed, would you believe that Superman is real?
RoboTimbo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th December 2012, 05:44 PM   #638
DOC
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 7,959
Originally Posted by RoboTimbo View Post
...So, no, a mortal person existing isn't evidence that a magical being exists having the same name. Are you going to stop using that argument now?
Strawman, I never said a mortal person existing is evidence that a God exists having the same name.

Quote:
No, you were talking about Bart Ehrman's belief that an itinerant mortal preacher named Jesus existed and you conflated that with some divine being.
Which post? I believe I just said Bart Ehrman said Jesus "certainly existed" in his latest book.

Last edited by DOC; 12th December 2012 at 05:49 PM. Reason: added last quote
DOC is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th December 2012, 05:53 PM   #639
DOC
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 7,959
Originally Posted by RoboTimbo View Post
Wouldn't you agree that children being born with devastating diseases is some evidence that no god(s) exist, with your usage of the word "evidence"?
Not if those innocent children go to an eternal heaven upon death.
DOC is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th December 2012, 05:55 PM   #640
Resume
Troublesome Passenger
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 21,844
Originally Posted by DOC View Post
Not if those innocent children go to an eternal heaven upon death.
What if they just wanted to spend more time with their parents and siblings? How presumptious can you get?
Resume is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:45 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.