Proving that God is Imaginary by Logic

[TagliatelliMonster]

How does a claim make a person wrong or even more precise, how does a claim cause a person to be wrong?

Again with the silly semantics.

The person would be wrong concerning said claim when the claim has been demonstrated wrong, obviously.

Any more semantic nitpicking you wish to engage in?

When you claim that your car is larger then a truck, and we then measure both and find out the truck is larger, then your claim is shown objectively wrong.

So you are wrong about said claim.

It's not rocket science.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

And the world/reality is real and objective and therefore as the content of people's thought are in the world, the content is real and objective and not unreal and subjective.

Edit:
How does something real and objective cause something else to be unreal and subjective?

I have no idea what you are actually asking.
Likely this is the case because you are once again engaging in semantic drivel and using words in completely different ways then the result of the world's population.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Again with the silly semantics.

The person would be wrong concerning said claim when the claim has been demonstrated wrong, obviously.

Any more semantic nitpicking you wish to engage in?

When you claim that your car is larger then a truck, and we then measure both and find out the truck is larger, then your claim is shown objectively wrong.

So you are wrong about said claim.

It's not rocket science.

So how do we measure wrong like large? What is the measurement standard?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I have no idea what you are actually asking.
Likely this is the case because you are once again engaging in semantic drivel and using words in completely different ways then the result of the world's population.

Good, now you only have to give evidence for the fact, that I am not a part of the world's population? Or that truth is what a majority believe? If that is the cases, God exists.

 

[firedragon]

"Ask for the persons view´..." Well, I don't have to ask for a persons view to know that if it is a persons view, then it is exactly that:
A single individual persons view. Now if the view is subjective and not objective, then it can't be made objective. That is logic. So if a persons view is subjective, then I can subjectively have another view. If it is objective, we can share it, if we can agree on what objective is. Objective is in practice in part a shared subjective view.

So is, what you know about God, if you know about God, subjective or objective?
That is where we end.

Great. Cheers.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Love is an emotion expressed by animals?

Yes.

Do you have any evidence that there aren't non-material beings in the universe?

About as much evidence that there aren't extra-dimensional unicorns or undetectable dragons or gravity regulating pixies.
Pointing out that there is no evidence of X NOT existing, does not make X plausible or even possible.

We have exactly zero reasons to think (or even suggest) that "non-material beings" or extra-dimensional unicorns or undetectable dragons or gravity regulating pixies exist. So why would we?

How much of the universe have you explored?

Enough to know that emotions are functions of a material brain.

The brainscan of love shows you where in the brain this occurs? I looked up the definition of love. It didn't show the brain scan. Why not?

Because it discusses the emotion itself and not the neurological underpinnings where they originate.

The brainscan proves that love does not exist absent a material brain? So the brainscan is proof that no other life forms exist?

How many times must I explain this?
Love = an emotion.
Emotions = things that brains do.
The brainscan = show the neurological material underpinnings of the emotion of love.

Which part don't you understand?

I should point you to the love that I think exists absent a material brain?

Since you are claim that love can exist absent a material brain, it seems like a reasonable request.
If you can't point me to such, then your claim falls in the category of undetectable dragons and gravity regulating pixies.

Why describe something to someone who is incapable of understanding it?

How have you determined that I would be unable to understand it?
Before you can make that assessment, you would have to show me your evidence and THEN observe that I don't understand it.

So really, this is clearly simply an excuse for to not share it. Likely because you know it's fallacious nonsense and make-belief.

We don't have evidence of angels or ghosts?

Indeed we don't.

There's tens of thousands of personal reports.

Those are claims. Claims require evidence.
Do you believe everything that people claim?

So, do you believe all of the following:
- that the god Mars was present on the battlefield when Julius Ceasar conquered Gaul?
- that people are being abducted by aliens and were subjected to weird sexual experiments?
- that bigfoot and lochness monsters are real?
- .....

I'm guessing you don't. So why do you accept the "reports" of angels and ghosts but not the "reports" of Mars and alien abduction. The answer is simple: confirmation bias.

Here come the fear tactics? You can't be afraid of something you don't believe exists

And I'm not. But that doesn't stop your from going to your last resort by making empty threats: "believe, or else!"

A threat in this context is employing fear tactics. No matter if it's an empty threat or not (which it is, in this case).

It's not fear I'm promoting, it's justice.

That's what you believe. It's still fear tactics.

An undetectable dragon cannot be detected? But then you cannot prove it does not exist. Logic.

Yes. You can't disprove the unfalsifiable, nore can supportive evidence exist for the undetectable either.
So, do you believe everything that can't be shown false, for as only reason that it can't be shown false?
Off course you don't. When it concerns any other subject then your religion, you are utterly unimpressed by the non-argument saying "but you can't show it's false, so there!".

Claims are justified by evidence FOR them. Not by the lack of evidence against them.

The empty box is a testable claim because you can look into it and see if it is empty?

Yes. Isn't it obvious?

Let's add some factors to drive this point home. Let's change the claim from "this box is empty" into "this invisible and undetectable box is empty".

Can you still test the claim?

It is testable but the logic proposed was that a negative could not be proven. I showed that it could so you changed the word negative to testable.

No, that was your quote mine. Once again, for the third time now, I must refer you back to the part you COMPLETELY ignored. I even bolded it. Here it is again:

...that doesn't make testable predictions, isn't self contradicting (like married bachelors) or which is unfalsifiable (like gods and all other supernatural nonsense).

Why do you keep on ignoring this? I pointed it out three times now. Why do you insist on being so dishonest by misrepresenting what I actually said?

Baby get anrgy. Baby cry cry cry. Angry baby baby get mad at theists because they not angry like little baby. Boo hoo baby cry.

What are you... like 6 years old?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

How do you know? Are you God to read my mind mate?

Because only humans talk and write about gods.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You didn't understand mate. So you are absolutely wrong. You don't know why I believe or not believe anything. So to make an assumption you have to read my mind. Making general comments of your perception to an individual is the genetic fallacy. Ask for that persons view and why, then make a comment. So that's why I said he is.

So you were wrong.

My point wasn't about why you believe or not.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So how do we measure wrong like large? What is the measurement standard?

 

[firedragon]

My point wasn't about why you believe or not.

Oh okay. If I misunderstood apologies mate.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Good, now you only have to give evidence for the fact, that I am not a part of the world's population?

I didn't say you weren't.
Once again, arguing for the sake of arguing, strawmanning points being made,...

Waste of time and energy.

 

[firedragon]

Because only humans talk and write about gods.

So what other species do you get in this forum brother?

Alright. I am out of this discussion. Cheers.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Great. Cheers.

If you don't mind, could you use some more words?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

View attachment 41265

So what is length of wrong and what is the length of right.

You are confusing different aspects of the world.
So to end with a classic.

The world in nothing but me on the edge of cliff wondering if I should jump off and try to fly.
Now in broader terms the world is just the physical and how that can get me killed.
Well, no, and I am still here. The world is in part the unreal and subjective, because I have just do so and you are now observing it.
Here is the test.
The world is objective, real, physical and what not.
Me: No, not just. And now I am dead and proof that God exists, because I have risen form the dead. Well, no, I am just subjective, not real and not physical in part.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I didn't say you weren't.
Once again, arguing for the sake of arguing, strawmanning points being made,...

Waste of time and energy.

What is the world, the universe, everything, reality and what not. Well, it has to include you and me and that we in part can be subjective, not real and not physical in part. If we couldn't be that, then I couldn't argue like I do. The fact that I can thinking subjectively with thoughts which have non real contents and which can't be measured physically is the evidence, that the world is more than objective, real, physical and what not.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So what other species do you get in this forum brother?
Alright. I am out of this discussion. Cheers.

My point was that we can only evaluate / study gods through what people claim about it.
Because there is no evidence independent of what humans believe and claim.

There's no data, no testable evidence, nothing.

All there is, are people's beliefs.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So what is length of wrong and what is the length of right.

You're being ridiculously, absurdly semantic again and drawing dishonest and quite absurd equivocations once more.

It's absolutely ridiculous.

You can't even acknowledge that if you claim that object X is bigger then object Y, that the claim is demonstrated wrong when we measure the size of both X and Y and conclude that Y is bigger then X.

Your response instead, is completely absurd sentences like "what is the length of wrong".

I mean, seriously.........................................................................

How do you even manage to turn on your pc to post this drivel?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

What is the world, the universe, everything, reality and what not. Well, it has to include you and me and that we in part can be subjective, not real and not physical in part. If we couldn't be that, then I couldn't argue like I do. The fact that I can thinking subjectively with thoughts which have non real contents and which can't be measured physically is the evidence, that the world is more than objective, real, physical and what not.

None of this is relevant to the point that was made.
Ironically, you are once again guilty of the point that was actually made: you are once again using words in a way that nobody else does. This makes communication with you completely impossible.

 

[Super Universe]

Yes.



About as much evidence that there aren't extra-dimensional unicorns or undetectable dragons or gravity regulating pixies.
Pointing out that there is no evidence of X NOT existing, does not make X plausible or even possible.

We have exactly zero reasons to think (or even suggest) that "non-material beings" or extra-dimensional unicorns or undetectable dragons or gravity regulating pixies exist. So why would we?



Enough to know that emotions are functions of a material brain.



Because it discusses the emotion itself and not the neurological underpinnings where they originate.



How many times must I explain this?
Love = an emotion.
Emotions = things that brains do.
The brainscan = show the neurological material underpinnings of the emotion of love.

Which part don't you understand?



Since you are claim that love can exist absent a material brain, it seems like a reasonable request.
If you can't point me to such, then your claim falls in the category of undetectable dragons and gravity regulating pixies.



How have you determined that I would be unable to understand it?
Before you can make that assessment, you would have to show me your evidence and THEN observe that I don't understand it.

So really, this is clearly simply an excuse for to not share it. Likely because you know it's fallacious nonsense and make-belief.



Indeed we don't.



Those are claims. Claims require evidence.
Do you believe everything that people claim?

So, do you believe all of the following:
- that the god Mars was present on the battlefield when Julius Ceasar conquered Gaul?
- that people are being abducted by aliens and were subjected to weird sexual experiments?
- that bigfoot and lochness monsters are real?
- .....

I'm guessing you don't. So why do you accept the "reports" of angels and ghosts but not the "reports" of Mars and alien abduction. The answer is simple: confirmation bias.



And I'm not. But that doesn't stop your from going to your last resort by making empty threats: "believe, or else!"

A threat in this context is employing fear tactics. No matter if it's an empty threat or not (which it is, in this case).




That's what you believe. It's still fear tactics.



Yes. You can't disprove the unfalsifiable, nore can supportive evidence exist for the undetectable either.
So, do you believe everything that can't be shown false, for as only reason that it can't be shown false?
Off course you don't. When it concerns any other subject then your religion, you are utterly unimpressed by the non-argument saying "but you can't show it's false, so there!".

Claims are justified by evidence FOR them. Not by the lack of evidence against them.



Yes. Isn't it obvious?

Let's add some factors to drive this point home. Let's change the claim from "this box is empty" into "this invisible and undetectable box is empty".

Can you still test the claim?




No, that was your quote mine. Once again, for the third time now, I must refer you back to the part you COMPLETELY ignored. I even bolded it. Here it is again:

...that doesn't make testable predictions, isn't self contradicting (like married bachelors) or which is unfalsifiable (like gods and all other supernatural nonsense).

Why do you keep on ignoring this? I pointed it out three times now. Why do you insist on being so dishonest by misrepresenting what I actually said?



What are you... like 6 years old?

Pointing out there is no evidence of X NOT existing does not make X plausible or possible? You don't have any real power in the universe so your ideas don't matter. Whether you believe or know something is insignificant to the universe.

We have zero reason to think that non-material beings exist? Who is we? You don't speak for humanity or the universe and you don't know even half as much as you think you do.

You know that emotions are a function of a material brain? They're not.

The dictionary definition of love discusses the emotion itself and not the brain where it originates? So a brain scan is not evidence of anything except thought?

These terms, material underpinnings, and neurological underpinnings, you invented them yourself?

My claims fall in the category of undetectable dragons and gravity regulating pixies? The undetectable dragons are only undetectable by you and the gravity regulating pixies are actually Primary Eventuated Master Force Organizers.

How have I determined that you are unable to understand something? In order to truly understand something that is emotional you have to be able to feel that emotion. To you love is a brain scan.

I know it's nonsense and make belief? Not nonsense but make believe, yes, it is make believe and it's incredible.

We don't have evidence for angels or ghosts? No, you don't have evidence. You're not required to be informed.

Do I believe everything that people claim? People believe in things that fit with their already accepted ideas of how the world works. If I know it fits, then, I probably believe in it. If I know it doesn't fit then I don't. If I'm not sure, then I'm not sure. What are your already accepted ideas? Let's see, to you God can't exist because He would have given you the life you wanted, right?

Do I believe that the god Mars was present during a battle? The answer to that one is very long so I will skip it.

Do I believe in people being abducted by aliens and subjected to weird sexual experiments? Yes.

Do I believe in bigfoot? Yes.

Do I believe in lochness monsters? There's something in there but it's not a monster.

I'm promoting fear tactics? Does fear of jail prevent the criminal from being a criminal? Not really. You are what you are.

Do I believe everything that can't be shown to be false? No. As I said it has to fit with what I know to be true.

If something is invisible and undetectable can I still test the claim? Just because something is invisible and undetectable to you does not mean it is invisible and undetectable to others.

I don't care what you actually said. You're not important to the universe.

Am I 6 years old? I am all ages.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Pointing out there is no evidence of X NOT existing does not make X plausible or possible?

Nope.
Do you think extra-dimensional unicorns or undetectable dragons or gravity regulating pixies or alien abductions are plausible or possible? I'm guessing you don't. Yet, there is no evidence against them.

Once again, the plausibility / possibility of a claim isn't assessed by the lack of evidence against them, but by the existance of the evidence FOR them.

You don't have any real power in the universe so your ideas don't matter. Whether you believe or know something is insignificant to the universe.

Which isn't relevant at all to the point being discussed.

We have zero reason to think that non-material beings exist?

Indeed. There is zero evidence for such, thus we have no reason to believe or think they exist.

Who is we?

The human collective.

You don't speak for humanity

Off course I can, in this context.
No human has valid evidence for the existance of non-material beings.

Not me, not you, not the pope or anyone else.

or the universe and you don't know even half as much as you think you do.

Sure, there's quite a lot that I don't know.
Doesn't matter. What matters to the point, is that such evidence does not exist.

You know that emotions are a function of a material brain? They're not

If emotions are not functions of a material brain, then what are they and what is your evidence in support of that?

The dictionary definition of love discusses the emotion itself and not the brain where it originates?

Yes.

So a brain scan is not evidence of anything except thought?

And emotions. And through experiment and research, neurologists figure out which part of the brain is responsible for what. The scan posted, shows the parts responsible for love.

How the Brain Processes Emotions

These terms, material underpinnings, and neurological underpinnings, you invented them yourself?

No.

My claims fall in the category of undetectable dragons and gravity regulating pixies?

Well, yes. They have the same evidence in support of them (none) and you insist that your claims not being disproven means that they are plausible. Undetectable dragons can't be disproven either.

The undetectable dragons are only undetectable by you and the gravity regulating pixies are actually Primary Eventuated Master Force Organizers.

Que?

How have I determined that you are unable to understand something? In order to truly understand something that is emotional you have to be able to feel that emotion.

So you just determined that I'm unable to love?

To you love is a brain scan.

No. To me love is an emotion. Like hate, anger, happyness, depression, jealousy, etc.
That they occur in the brain, is just the explanation thereof. It doesn't take away its value or reality.

We don't have evidence for angels or ghosts? No, you don't have evidence. You're not required to be informed.

If there were valid evidence, you'ld be able to share it. So please do.

In the words of Bill Nye (the science guy): "Do you believe in ghosts? well... no.... however, I would love to see one. So bring it on!"

But nobody ever does.......

Do I believe everything that people claim? People believe in things that fit with their already accepted ideas of how the world works. If I know it fits, then, I probably believe in it. If I know it doesn't fit then I don't.

Indeed. This is exactly what confimation bias is.
So by your own acknowledgement, I was right in that evaluation. It means that your reasons for belief are fallacious. Confirmation bias is not a good thing, when the goal is to hold as many true beliefs as possible and the least false beliefs as possible...

What are your already accepted ideas?

Those that are supported by valid evidence.

Let's see, to you God can't exist because He would have given you the life you wanted, right?

Not at all. If you wish to know what my beliefs are concerning gods and why, you should ask me instead of just guessing.

Do I believe that the god Mars was present during a battle? The answer to that one is very long so I will skip it.

So the answer isn't simply a resounding "no"?
Owkay then.

Do I believe in people being abducted by aliens and subjected to weird sexual experiments? Yes.
Do I believe in bigfoot? Yes.

So really... you are just gullible then I guess...

Let's go a step further.
Do you believe in Allah and mohammed as his prophet?
Do you believe in Lord Shiva and Krishna?
Do you believe in Lord Xenu and your inner thetan (scientology)?

All these have the same amount of evidence as alien abductions and bigfoot.
So, you believe them all?

I'm promoting fear tactics? Does fear of jail prevent the criminal from being a criminal?

Not the same thing. Crimes and indefensible beliefs aren't the same thing.
One deals with real-world behaviour with real-world immoral consequenses and real-word societal organization for the sake of real-world societal well-being and safety.
While the other deals with mere beliefs and indefensible, unsupportable claims of unsupportable consequences.

If you can't see the difference between "there will be consequences if you engage in robbery" on the one hand and "you need to believe this indefensible, unsupportable claim or great undemonstrable calamity will befall you", then I can't help you.

Do I believe everything that can't be shown to be false? No. As I said it has to fit with what I know to be true.

Yep. You happily and proudly acknowledge that you operate through confirmation bias.

If something is invisible and undetectable can I still test the claim?

Nope.

Just because something is invisible and undetectable to you does not mean it is invisible and undetectable to others.

If something is invisible and undectable, then it isn't detectable to anyone by definition.

I don't care what you actually said. You're not important to the universe.

Neither are you. Neither is the solar system. Neither is the milky way even.
The entire milky way can disappear tomorrow and the universe would be virtually the same.