Who knows?

[Muffled]

God exists alright in people's minds and imagination.

Just nowhere else.

So it's very easy to see that one without God's is pretty much the reality here and requires no introduction, as that is how people are born anyways.

If a person has to convince another on something, that means they have a problem.

I believe everything is known by the mind and we don't call math imagination because of that.

 

[vulcanlogician]

I don't believe people who think the case is not made are being honest with themselves.

Well, if that's true, what I've said can hardly be considered honest. Is that the entirety of your point?

 

[ChristineM]

I believe God is real because I know Him personally. The only way my testimony can be falsified is by those who lie.

I don't lie, you can believe whatever you want.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I believe everything is known by the mind and we don't call math imagination because of that.

Math is an application invented by mankind. A tool that can be used.

I suppose its possible to see God in that same context as an invented tool made and used by people applicable with religious functions.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I believe God is real because I know Him personally. The only way my testimony can be falsified is by those who lie.

Your testimony doesn't need to be falsified to be disregarded. You need to support it first if you wish to be believed.

Also, I don't think you know what falsify means. It means to successfully contradict (rebut, disprove). A specious argument can't falsify a claim.

I don't believe people who think the case is not made are being honest with themselves.

I think you have that reversed. Those who think they have adequate evidence to justify a god belief are the ones not being honest with themselves. Enlightened theists will tell you that their belief is faith-based and that the existing evidence doesn't confirm the existence of a deity.

 

[PureX]

You repeatedly demean empiricists and imply that they are missing out on something valuable with their myopic view, but can never produce any advantage to doing things otherwise.

Well, none that the empiricist could see or acknowledge given his absurdly myopic view of things.

 

[F1fan]

Well, none that the empiricist could see or acknowledge given his absurdly myopic view of things.

You've ben invited to explain what empiricists aren't sensing. Thus far the instructions begin with assuming religious ideas are true. No one will find truth by beginning with unwarranted assumptions that only seem designed to confirm a desired conclusion.

So, what else do you have that demonstrates theists are sensing something real that empiricists can't? Exlplain the myopic requirement of real evidence is a liability.

 

[Bird123]

What an extraordinary claim, and you offer no evidence or explanation. So it is rejected by default.


Another extraordinary claim, and no evidence that anything you say is true. So it is rejected by default.


Religion can be poison.


That is why critical thinkers won't readily believe fantastic ideas. Any ideas that do warrant belief will have adequate evidence that allows a reasoned conclusion. This is why critical thinkers don't believe in gods, there just isn't adequate evidence. We see a consistent pattern of theists claiming their gods exist, yet fail to offer evidence or explanation.


This certainly doesn't describe what theists do. This is more meaningless posturing, and I suspect it is due to having no evidence to present.


Odd that you have trouble articulating any knowledge.

I am speaking much more than you realize. It's just not what you want to hear.

Indeed religion has corrupted your view. You speak of rejecting and accepting. Don't you see? I am not asking you to reject or accept anything. I am pointing to where you can Discover the truth for yourself.

Your choices are entirely up to you. Your journey has always been in your hands. Perhaps you need to ask yourself what is it that you really seek? Whether God exists or not is not what you really seek.

That's what I see. It's very clear!!

 

[F1fan]

I am speaking much more than you realize. It's just not what you want to hear.

OK, what is it you are saying that is factual, and critical thinkers, like myself, are wanting to hear? Be very specific and back up your claim here. If you have a true position then you will have no trouble listing the facts that support your position and that I don't want to hear.

Indeed religion has corrupted your view. You speak of rejecting and accepting. Don't you see? I am not asking you to reject or accept anything. I am pointing to where you can Discover the truth for yourself.

Truth is in following facts and using reason. If you are referring to religious truth, well we know that is subjective and at the whims of the believer.

Your choices are entirely up to you. Your journey has always been in your hands. Perhaps you need to ask yourself what is it that you really seek? Whether God exists or not is not what you really seek.

I seek truth. That means I won't accept social and cultural ideas like those that proliferate via religion and believers. Thus far your statements offer no facts, therefore no truth. Your statements are like those that are tyical of religions.

If I am getting something wrong, then correct me, and be sure to use facts and make ONLY true statements, not your beliefs. Your beliefs are subjective, personal, and irrelevant. Facts is all we are asking of you. If you claim to have facts then you had better demonstrate they are true objectively, and not sone religious idea that is popular.[/quote]

 

[Heyo]

Enlightened theists will tell you that their belief is faith-based and that the existing evidence doesn't confirm the existence of a deity.

I think that is exactly what @Muffled has done here. He didn't claim to have objective evidence and said be believed god to be real.

 

[PureX]

You've ben invited to explain what empiricists aren't sensing.

It's not about "sensing". It's about different ways of understanding what we humans experience as existence. Ways that the materialist must deny because it's not materially based. To the absurd point of claiming that language is just noises coming from the mouth. And that ideas are just electrochemical interactions in the brain. And having bought into this absurd nonsense, fighting tooth and nail to stay trapped in it. Like clamping one's eyes tight shut and swearing up and down that there is no light because they don't see any. (And incessantly demanding that they be shown the light that they can't see and insist does not exist.)

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

It's not about "sensing"

What's left is imagination.

Ways that the materialist must deny because it's not materially based. To the absurd point of claiming that language is just noises coming from the mouth.

I've only seen that comment coming from you - twice now. I suppose this is your way of saying that to an empiricist, ideas don't exist. If so, wrong. If not, what does that mean?

having bought into this absurd nonsense, fighting tooth and nail to stay trapped in it. Like clamping one's eyes tight shut and swearing up and down that there is no light because they don't see any.

But that's you trying to give substance to your imagination and objecting when others indicate different standards for belief. That's you demeaning others for not going down that path with you even as you are unable to give them a reason why they should.

incessantly demanding that they be shown the light that they can't see and insist does not exist.

I thought it wasn't about sensing. I guess it is now. And yes, for as long as you keep making vapid claims about your great insight and way of knowing, you will be called on it. Why? Because you want to do it on the backs of others.

 

[RestlessSoul]

You've ben invited to explain what empiricists aren't sensing. Thus far the instructions begin with assuming religious ideas are true. No one will find truth by beginning with unwarranted assumptions that only seem designed to confirm a desired conclusion.

So, what else do you have that demonstrates theists are sensing something real that empiricists can't? Exlplain the myopic requirement of real evidence is a liability.

Actually, that's nonsense. Even if you are employing the narrowest of supposedly rational methods to establish the veracity of a theory, you have to start with certain assumptions. If you begin with the assumption that a given proposition cannot possibly be true under any circumstances, then of course all your considerations will lead you nowhere.

 

[F1fan]

It's not about "sensing". It's about different ways of understanding what we humans experience as existence.

OK, so this means w are all dealing with the same facts and data. To say how we understand facts and data comes down to interpretation and assumptions. Critical thinkers approach the sarch for truth the same way science does, and that means to eliminate all unnecessary assumptions. Why? Because the assumptions we make can affect conclusions, and that means error and bias.

I suggest you explain what assumptions you make that colors your "understanding" of human experiences. We can discuss those and how they affect your conclusions.

Ways that the materialist must deny because it's not materially based.

And "materially based" means verifiable and correct. How can immaterial be confirmed as existing, and relevant? It is subject to human imagination since this has no facts or data. So what is being denied except subjective desires? This is why theists can't agree on much at all.

To the absurd point of claiming that language is just noises coming from the mouth. And that ideas are just electrochemical interactions in the brain. And having bought into this absurd nonsense, fighting tooth and nail to stay trapped in it. Like clamping one's eyes tight shut and swearing up and down that there is no light because they don't see any. (And incessantly demanding that they be shown the light that they can't see and insist does not exist.)

What you describe here is nothing materialists do. No critical thinker has claimed anything you represent here.

 

[John D. Brey]

I use the OED definition of reality.

the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them.​

Doesn't quantum physics prove that there is no reality without observation and decision?

If we eliminated all the unfilled space in a man's body and collected his protons and electrons into on mass, the man would be reduced to a speck just visible with a magnifying glass.

Eddington.

If we could divest any given matter of all properties that come to it a priori, in other words, of all the forms of our perception and apprehension, we should be left with the thing-in-itself, that which, by means of those forms, appears as the purely empirical in matter, but would then itself no longer appear as something extended and acting; that is to say, we should no longer have before us any matter.

Schopenhauer.​

John

 

[ChristineM]

Doesn't quantum physics prove that there is no reality without observation and decision?

If we eliminated all the unfilled space in a man's body and collected his protons and electrons into on mass, the man would be reduced to a speck just visible with a magnifying glass.

Eddington.

If we could divest any given matter of all properties that come to it a priori, in other words, of all the forms of our perception and apprehension, we should be left with the thing-in-itself, that which, by means of those forms, appears as the purely empirical in matter, but would then itself no longer appear as something extended and acting; that is to say, we should no longer have before us any matter.

Schopenhauer.​

John

Eyes and tape measures cure that.

If we removed all the space in the atoms if every human being on the planet you would wind up with an incredibly dense lump the size of a sugar cube.

 

[F1fan]

Actually, that's nonsense. Even if you are employing the narrowest of supposedly rational methods to establish the veracity of a theory, you have to start with certain assumptions.

I'm not going to assume you understand how science works since you show signs of not understanding the basics. When a scientist creates a hypothesis they have to make a prediction and then design a test. It has to be based on observations, facts, and ALL data collected. Scientists don't get to pick and choose their facts and data, they HAVE to account for all of it. The scientific method requires the fewest possible assumptions, and this is the sake of objectivity. What assumptions do empirisists use? That our senses work reliably. That the laws of nature are constant, like gravity and the decay rates of radioactive isotopes. What are not used? Like a God exists. That there is a divinity at work. Etc.

Many hypotheses fail to meet the 99.95% statistical minimum in testing, but might still be viable as an explanation for observations. A scientist can redesign the test to eliminate certain uncontrollable variables. The approach here is to control variables so the conclusions have fewer alternative influences, and this includes assumptions. If science assumes a God, then the conclusion will include a God, and as we all know, gods are not known to exist.

If you begin with the assumption that a given proposition cannot possibly be true under any circumstances, then of course all your considerations will lead you nowhere.

False, it will help you understand what is true. Why? The same reason that in law a suspect of a crime is presumed innocent and evidence is used to demonstrate guilt. BTW, no one is saying that your religious assumptions can't possible be true. That is a straw man on your part.

In logic the natural default for any proposition is that it is untrue, and the claimant has to demonstrate their claim IS true by using evidence. This is why believers fail to persuade critical thinkers, they have claims they believe are true but lack evidence that their beliefs ARE true or even likely true. If a child claims the Tooth Fairy exists, do you automatically assume the kid is correct? Who knows, maybe the kid has had an experience, and he shows you the dollar he got for his tooth. That's pretty solid evidence. The kid left a tooth under his pillow and sure enough there was a dollar in its place the next morning. What better explanation is there, it must be the Tooth Fairy.

 

[John D. Brey]

Eyes and tape measures cure that.

If we removed all the space in the atoms if every human being on the planet you would wind up with an incredibly dense lump the size of a sugar cube.

And that doesn't measure up to what that sugar cube looks and seems like once life, and thought, reasoning, hoping, loving, living, dying, do their thing with it.

The sum is greater than the measure of its parts I think they say.



John

 

[F1fan]

Doesn't quantum physics prove that there is no reality without observation and decision?

If we eliminated all the unfilled space in a man's body and collected his protons and electrons into on mass, the man would be reduced to a speck just visible with a magnifying glass.

Eddington.

If we could divest any given matter of all properties that come to it a priori, in other words, of all the forms of our perception and apprehension, we should be left with the thing-in-itself, that which, by means of those forms, appears as the purely empirical in matter, but would then itself no longer appear as something extended and acting; that is to say, we should no longer have before us any matter.

Schopenhauer.​

John

And at this level we humans are no more special than the excrement we flush down the toilet.

 

[ChristineM]

And that doesn't measure up to what that sugar cube looks and seems like once life, and thought, reasoning, hoping, loving, living, dying, do their thing with it.

The sum is greater than the measure of its parts I think they say.



John

You started the removing space, i just continued with my knowledge of the subject.

If we eliminated all the unfilled space in a man's body and collected his protons and electrons into on mass, the man would be reduced to a speck just visible with a magnifying glass.