An Open Challenge To Creationists

[ratiocinator]

Yes, I know with evidence, that I can believe in God.

Of course you can believe in some god of your choice but if you stop believing, or choose a different god, or choose to believe in leprechauns, that won't be the same as if you stopped believing in gravity and tried to float out of windows.

I can also use the word "real", it means that it works for me to believe so.

You could use the word "pink" to mean "table", if you want, and it would make about as much sense.

It works for me to believe in the objective and the subjective.

Who doesn't?

BTW any rule for what evidence is, is subjective.

Float out of a window then.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Of course you can believe in some god of your choice but if you stop believing, or choose a different god, or choose to believe in leprechauns, that won't be the same as if you stopped believing in gravity and tried to float out of windows.

Yes, that is how it works.

You could use the word "pink" to mean "table", if you want, and it would make about as much sense.

Well, real is subjective and so are your rule of real and that it matters to you and your "we".

Float out of a window then.

Well, real is subjective. Not that everything is subjective.
The point of all of this, is that you want me to think like you and I want you to accept that we are in part doing it differently.

Regards
Mikkel

 

[ratiocinator]

Well, real is subjective. Not that everything is subjective.

Real isn't subjective, it's just unknown. Neither of us can know what is ultimately real. The difference is between people who stick with the objective evidence from what appears to be real - because that's what might as well be real anyway - and those that make up stories based on what we don't know.

You've basically just got a god of the gaps, but the gap you've chosen for it to inhabit is that we can't know what is real.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Real isn't subjective, it's just unknown. Neither of us can know what is ultimately real. The difference is between people who stick with the objective evidence from what appears to be real - because that's what might as well be real anyway - and those that make up stories based on what we don't know.

You've basically just got a god of the gaps, but the gap you've chosen for it to inhabit is that we can't know what is real.

"Neither of us can know what is ultimately real." Thus you know something and that is real and it is subjective, because what you know is not objective.
So how do you know, that something is unknown? You know it because you check and figure out that it is unknown. All of these are subjective, because they require you subjectively to do something, yet they are real.
How do you know this sentence: "Real isn't subjective, it's just unknown." You know it because it is a result of your subjective cognition and that is real, because if it wasn't you couldn't write that sentence.

Remember real has no objective referent. And indeed that is some, because you use real based on how you think.

Regards
Mikkel

 

[ratiocinator]

"Neither of us can know what is ultimately real." Thus you know something and that is real and it is subjective, because what you know is not objective.

What I claim to know is either based on what might as well be real or it isn't and is therefore subjective.

So how do you know, that something is unknown? You know it because you check and figure out that it is unknown.

By looking to find out if there is anything in what might as well be real that settles the matter.

Remember real has no objective referent.

Yes but what might as well be real does. Remember that we all agree that floating out of windows is not possible just because you stop believing in gravity.

I treat what might as well be real as real for all practical purposes, and so do you. That is the standard of "objectivity" on which science is based (and it objectively works). What is beyond that is not known - you make up stories about it (god) and I don't - I stick with what is effectively real.

The problem here seems to be that you think you're saying something far more profound and far reaching than you actually have any basis for.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...
I treat what might as well be real as real for all practical purposes, and so do you. That is the standard of "objectivity" on which science is based (and it objectively works). What is beyond that is not known - you make up stories about it (god) and I don't - I stick with what is effectively real.
...

All you do, is not objective as what might as well be real, because it is real that you could be an atheist or believe in God. That is the subjective part. You believe as you do subjectively, because that is what subjectively makes sense to you.

So let us test that using science.
Are there atheists? Yes, we can observe that. Are there religious people? Yes, we can observe that. Both are real.
What is effectively real, is that it doesn't make sense to you to believe in god. I accept that, I just don't accept that you can use science to answer that, because the question is as follows: Can I see as see whether I should believe in gods or not? The answer is in both cases, no! Because you can't see with science, how you subjective believe.
That is the limit of objectivity.
It is a fact for how reality works that you are an atheist and I am religious and that is how reality works and you can't use objective to show which one is the correct one with science, because both are facts of how reality works.

You are in effect just explaining how it makes sense to you subjectively to believe and that you don't in effect subjectively accept that I do it differently, because that doesn't make sense to you.
That is all we are doing now. We are playing subjectivity and it is right there:
"...you make up stories about it (god) and I don't - I stick with what is effectively real." It is effectively real that I can make up stories, otherwise you couldn't point out as a fact, that I can make up stories.
Now with objectively real give evidence with science that this is not how reality works. You can't. Religion is real!!! So is atheism and both are subjective, yet real.

Regards
Mikkel

 

[ratiocinator]

All you do, is not objective as what might as well be real, because it is real that you could be an atheist or believe in God. That is the subjective part. You believe as you do subjectively, because that is what subjectively makes sense to you.

So let us test that using science.
Are there atheists? Yes, we can observe that. Are there religious people? Yes, we can observe that. Both are real.
What is effectively real, is that it doesn't make sense to you to believe in god. I accept that, I just don't accept that you can use science to answer that, because the question is as follows: Can I see as see whether I should believe in gods or not? The answer is in both cases, no! Because you can't see with science, how you subjective believe.
That is the limit of objectivity.
It is a fact for how reality works that you are an atheist and I am religious and that is how reality works and you can't use objective to show which one is the correct one with science, because both are facts of how reality works.

You are in effect just explain how it makes sense to you subjectively to believe and that you don't in effect subjectively accept that I do it differently, because that doesn't make sense to you.
That is all we are doing now. We are playing subjectivity and it is right there:
"...you make up stories about it (god) and I don't - I stick with what is effectively real." It is effectively real that I can make up stories, otherwise you couldn't point out as a fact, that I can make up stories.
Now with objectively real give evidence with science that this is not how reality works. You can't. Religion is real!!! So is atheism and both are subjective, yet real.

Back to the smokescreen. Nothing you've said here changes anything. You're welcome to make up stories of gods and believe them. I'm an atheist not because I claim to know that there are no gods, but because I see no reason to take the stories seriously (yours or any other theist's). I've not made up a story about what lies beyond what might as well be real, I simply don't know.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Back to the smokescreen. Nothing you've said here changes anything. You're welcome to make up stories of gods and believe them. I'm an atheist not because I claim to know that there are no gods, but because I see no reason to take the stories seriously (yours or any other theist's). I've not made up a story about what lies beyond what might as well be real, I simply don't know.

How do you see that?

Regards
Mikkel

 

[ratiocinator]

How do you see that?

I didn't.

 

[ecco]

I didn't.

Thanks for stepping in. I was completely bored.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Thanks for stepping in. I was completely bored.

How subjective of you. I will admit that it is a really well crafted answer with reason, logic and evidence.

Now you see, the problem of the external world started and ends with me. Rene Descartes, that is me. All other philosophers talking about that problem, that is me. All science about Boltzmann Brains that is me. I made the movie the Matrix. And so.

And you solved the problem of the external world by being bored. How rational of you. The world revolves around you. And you are the science, the philosophy and truth of it.

 

[YoursTrue]

It was the Genesis stories that convinced the 10-year-old me that the Bible was nothing more than fantasy stories like all my other comic books. Only the Bible stories were even less believable.

I always viewed it as an analogy, it seemed very poetic, but when I looked at it later, I realize (wonder?) how it could have been known by humans (?) that light and plants and water supplies came in succession.

 

[ecco]

How subjective of you. I will admit that it is a really well crafted answer with reason, logic and evidence.

Now you see, the problem of the external world started and ends with me. Rene Descartes, that is me. All other philosophers talking about that problem, that is me. All science about Boltzmann Brains that is me. I made the movie the Matrix. And so.

And you solved the problem of the external world by being bored. How rational of you. The world revolves around you. And you are the science, the philosophy and truth of it.

Duh! Do you really think your rambling nonsense is worthy of more than a few reads? It isn't.

 

[ecco]

I always viewed it as an analogy, it seemed very poetic, but when I looked at it later, I realize (wonder?) how it could have been known by humans (?) that light and plants and water supplies came in succession.

So, according to you and your source (The Bible?) plants came before "water supplies". Hmm.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Duh! Do you really think your rambling nonsense is worthy of more than a few reads? It isn't.

So worth is what?

 

[Agnostic Christian]

All you do, is not objective as what might as well be real, because it is real that you could be an atheist or believe in God. That is the subjective part. You believe as you do subjectively, because that is what subjectively makes sense to you.

So let us test that using science.
Are there atheists? Yes, we can observe that. Are there religious people? Yes, we can observe that. Both are real.
What is effectively real, is that it doesn't make sense to you to believe in god. I accept that, I just don't accept that you can use science to answer that, because the question is as follows: Can I see as see whether I should believe in gods or not? The answer is in both cases, no! Because you can't see with science, how you subjective believe.
That is the limit of objectivity.
It is a fact for how reality works that you are an atheist and I am religious and that is how reality works and you can't use objective to show which one is the correct one with science, because both are facts of how reality works.

You are in effect just explaining how it makes sense to you subjectively to believe and that you don't in effect subjectively accept that I do it differently, because that doesn't make sense to you.
That is all we are doing now. We are playing subjectivity and it is right there:
"...you make up stories about it (god) and I don't - I stick with what is effectively real." It is effectively real that I can make up stories, otherwise you couldn't point out as a fact, that I can make up stories.
Now with objectively real give evidence with science that this is not how reality works. You can't. Religion is real!!! So is atheism and both are subjective, yet real.

Regards
Mikkel

Stop saying subjective so much. You don't need to say it every other word. You're obfuscating your point, if there is one.

 

[tas8831]

Logical fallacy, "Strawman".
A straw man is a form of argument and an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent. One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man"

I asked a clarifying question so that I can accurately answer what the OP is asking for, not to avoid answering him.

How you misread my post to come up with the exact opposite of my intention, I don't know.

And yet you are incompetent to produce such evidence that creationism has merit.
Pfft. Your games are tiresome.

 

[YoursTrue]

Back to the smokescreen. Nothing you've said here changes anything. You're welcome to make up stories of gods and believe them. I'm an atheist not because I claim to know that there are no gods, but because I see no reason to take the stories seriously (yours or any other theist's). I've not made up a story about what lies beyond what might as well be real, I simply don't know.

And that is where belief in a higher power than nature comes in. Also, I would like to mention here that Jesus called his Father and God the "only true God." John 17:3 "And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent"