My suggestion is "Take it outside". I'm rather annoyed that the arguments have nothing to do with the thread and much of what I would characterize as a lack of respect between two people (more if you include HRB). I suspect that most readers of this thread (with the possible exceptions of garo and ewmayer) lost interest in the bickering between you two days ago.

[quote=rogue;183776]My suggestion is "Take it outside". I'm rather annoyed that the arguments have nothing to do with the thread and much of what I would characterize as a lack of respect between two people (more if you include HRB). I suspect that most readers of this thread (with the possible exceptions of garo and ewmayer) lost interest in the bickering between you two days ago.[/quote]It would be satisfactory to me to have our entire interchange (including comments by third parties), from #99 on, moved to a separate thread.

[quote=Zeta-Flux;183771]If you had ever explained to me you thought I was personally attacking you, I would have apologized. I'll do so again now. I'm sorry.[/quote]The problem is not lack of apology.

The problem is that you have devalued your apologies by repeating the same offense after you apologize.

To me, "apologize" means "I understand what I did wrong, I accept responsibility for it, and I will make a good-faith effort not to repeat the offense."

[quote]I'm sorry that I accused you of being charitable. I only meant it with respect to part of your answer.[/quote]... but you didn't notice that the way you wrote it implied that that part of my answer was the [U]only[/U] part of my answer, with no mention or acknowledgment that [I]the original, most important, primary answer was "I find none."[/I]?

That part somehow always disappears, without acknowledgment, in your accusation. Why?

Why do you find it useful to repeat the part that wasn't my real, original, primary answer, always accompanied by the observation that it was charitable, while omitting the noncharitable primary answer? Would it tend to weaken your argument about my differing standards if you treated my noncharitable primary answer with more respect than the casually charitable secondary guess you've repeated?

Zeta-Flux,

Thank you for taking the discussion off-line to PM.

However, after I composed my PM reply, I was informed:

"Zeta-Flux has chosen not to receive private messages or may not be allowed to receive private messages. Therefore you may not send your message to him/her."

cheesehead,

Google: Pace Nielsen mathematics. You should be able to find my email address.

[QUOTE=rogue;183776] I suspect that most readers of this thread (with the possible exceptions of garo and ewmayer) lost interest in the bickering between you two days ago.[/QUOTE]

Somewhat true in my case- I just couldn't keep track of what was being argued about. The original topic of the thread itself has always been of interest for, oh, several thousand years at least. Perhaps the fact that it evolved (devolved? degenerated?) so far and so quickly is of some philosophical importance to the question itself. I'm sure several of my old literature teachers could find plenty of hidden meaning if this thread had been written as a short story or novel.

Norm

[QUOTE=Zeta-Flux;183771]
To all: Do other posters agree with this assessment?[/QUOTE]
Honestly, this whole bickering over verbiage is a complete waste of time. I am sure both you and cheesehead have jobs (I hope) and families.
[B]This thread is a discussion about the existence of God, not over the command of the English language.[/B] You know that neither side of a debate can accurately argue its viewpoints when they begin to bicker about verbiage.

Note: This is not a personal attack on either Zeta-Flux (Pace Nielsen) or cheesehead, it is an attack on this bickering between the two over the "accuracy" of some article cheesehead posted (or I think that's how the bickering begin; IDRGAF).

[QUOTE=flouran;183915]Honestly, this whole bickering over verbiage is a complete waste of time. I am sure both you and cheesehead have jobs (I hope) and families.
[B]This thread is a discussion about the existence of God, not over the command of the English language.[/B] You know that neither side of a debate can accurately argue its viewpoints when they begin to bicker about verbiage.

Note: This is not a personal attack on either Zeta-Flux (Pace Nielsen) or cheesehead, it is an attack on this bickering between the two over the "accuracy" of some article cheesehead posted (or I think that's how the bickering begin; IDRGAF).[/QUOTE]

Agreed. It seems to be a debate over "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is" or pretty close to that.

Would the mods mind removing those posts from this thread? I believe that cheesehead had already asked for that. I presume that Zeta-Flux would agree.

[quote=flouran;183915]Honestly, this whole bickering over verbiage is a complete waste of time. I am sure both you and cheesehead have jobs (I hope) and families.
[B]This thread is a discussion about the existence of God, not over the command of the English language.[/B] You know that neither side of a debate can accurately argue its viewpoints when they begin to bicker about verbiage.[/quote]

I think the debate was a good illustration that it isn't a prerogative of the religious to be exceptionally stupid.

[quote=flouran;183915]Note: This is not a personal attack on either Zeta-Flux (Pace Nielsen) or cheesehead, it is an attack on this bickering between the two over the "accuracy" of some article cheesehead posted (or I think that's how the bickering begin; IDRGAF).[/quote]

Never waste an opportunity for a good personal attack, dumbass.

[QUOTE=__HRB__;183920]
Never waste an opportunity for a good personal attack, dumbass.[/QUOTE]
I've done plenty of that on this forum already with R.D. Silverman, until the point that my account was almost deleted.
When I feel like a personal attack is necessary, then I will. You don't need to tell me :smile:

[quote=flouran;183922]I've done plenty of that on this forum already with R.D. Silverman, until the point that my account was almost deleted.[/quote]

No fair.

If R.D. Silverman can use a mild form of autism as an excuse to be an S.O.B., then everybody else should at least be able to use a mild form of Tourette's.


[quote=flouran;183922] When I feel like a personal attack is necessary, then I will. You don't need to tell me :smile:[/quote]

:beer:

[QUOTE=__HRB__;183924]
If R.D. Silverman can use a mild form of autism as an excuse to be an S.O.B., then everybody else should at least be able to use a mild form of Tourette's.
[/QUOTE]
Agreed.
[QUOTE=__HRB__;183924]
:beer:[/QUOTE]
Eh, not a big fan of beer :blush:

[quote=flouran;183925]Eh, not a big fan of beer :blush:[/quote]

'twas metaphorical.

:beer:correlates heavily with :sick:. Might even be causal!

[QUOTE=__HRB__;183926]'twas metaphorical.

:beer:correlates heavily with :sick:.[/QUOTE]
My bad :lol:

[quote=flouran;183915]cheesehead have jobs (I hope) and families.[/quote]Actually, I have neither. (I have relatives living away from here, but none nearby nor any dependents.)

[B][quote]This thread is a discussion about the existence of God, not over the command of the English language.[/quote][/B]... and you have eloquently confirmed that in posts #204, 206, and 208 so far! :-}

[quote]You know that neither side of a debate can accurately argue its viewpoints when they begin to bicker about verbiage.[/quote]Not necessarily true. In this particular case, some of the verbiage has led to insight about non-language things.

However, in hindsight it would have been better for this thread if our interchange had occurred outside it (or if a moderator were to make it seem that way :). I am about to continue my side of the interchange through e-mail -- a constructive e-mail.

[quote]it is an attack on this bickering between the two over the "accuracy" of some article cheesehead posted (or I think that's how the bickering begin; IDRGAF).[/quote]You are not required to GAF, but the issues have been broader than that.

[quote=cheesehead;183929]... and you have eloquently confirmed that in posts #204, 206, and 208 so far! :-}[/quote]

Not to mention: #2^3*3*17, #555-0349, #sin(2*atan(1))*208 !!!!

[QUOTE=cheesehead;183929]Actually, I have neither. (I have relatives living away from here, but none nearby nor any dependents.)
[/QUOTE]
That sucks. Sorry to hear that (then again, it can be a good thing. I'd much rather live in solitude that in the company of other people).
[QUOTE=cheesehead;183929]
However, in hindsight it would have been better for this thread if our interchange had occurred outside it (or if a moderator were to make it seem that way :). I am about to continue my side of the interchange through e-mail -- a constructive e-mail.
[/QUOTE]
Which is what the other subscribers to this thread agree to....Hooray for repetition! :razz:
[QUOTE=cheesehead;183929]
You are not required to GAF...[/QUOTE]
Keep in mind that this thread is public, so technically, it's very hard not to GAF, which again reverts to the previous statement of moving this futile discussion between you and Zeta-Flux away from this thread.
[QUOTE=cheesehead;183929]
...but the issues have been broader than that
[/QUOTE]
I and the other subscribers to this thread (except for probably you and Zeta-Flux) beg to differ.

Atheist ads taken down
 

Atheist ads taken down from buses:
[url]http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32418140/ns/us_news-faith/[/url]

I would be delighted to hear commentary regarding the linked article.

As long as the bus owners are willing to allow all sorts of religious speech, I don't see any problem with them allowing the atheist ads on their buses.

[QUOTE=Zeta-Flux;185727]As long as the bus owners are willing to allow all sorts of religious speech, I don't see any problem with them allowing the atheist ads on their buses.[/QUOTE]

I agree.

[QUOTE=Zeta-Flux;185727]As long as the bus owners are willing to allow all sorts of religious speech, I don't see any problem with them allowing the atheist ads on their buses.[/QUOTE]

My read on that artice is that these are city (taxpayer) owned busses.

Maybe they should auction off the space and give liquor stores, titty bars, and discount tobacco businesses the same oppertunity to bid for the space.

It'd at least help direct new arrivals to where they want to go, after the business of the day is taken care of.

[QUOTE=AES;185731]My read on that artice is that these are city (taxpayer) owned busses.

Maybe they should auction off the space and give liquor stores, titty bars, and discount tobacco businesses the same oppertunity to bid for the space.

It'd at least help direct new arrivals to where they want to go, after the business of the day is taken care of.[/QUOTE]I think the major difference is that the three things you mention are all age controlled activities. Lack of belief in god (uncapitalised, it is not a proper noun :razz:) has no age restriction.

We can choose to believe, or not, in anything we want at any age, and it does not require a particular place or location to go to (like a bar or convenience store), it is simply a choice we make.

[QUOTE=retina;185735]I think the major difference is that the three things you mention are all age controlled activities. Lack of belief in god (uncapitalised, it is not a proper noun :razz:) has no age restriction.

We can choose to believe, or not, in anything we want at any age, and it does not require a particular place or location to go to (like a bar or convenience store), it is simply a choice we make.[/QUOTE]

Indeed, but an advertisement is an advertisement. Those who can participate will also be exposed. (perhaps you should consider me a titty bar owner requesting some advertisement space downtown.)

[QUOTE=AES;185737]Indeed, but an advertisement is an advertisement.[/QUOTE]No. Advertisements for activities that are age restricted are generally considered (by most rational people) to not be appropriate for a place like the side of a bus. I doubt that Penthouse could ever get approval to place an advertisement on a public bus.

[QUOTE=retina;185738]No. Advertisements for activities that are age restricted are generally considered (by most rational people) to not be appropriate for a place like the side of a bus. I doubt that Penthouse could ever get approval to place an advertisement on a public bus.[/QUOTE]

I agree. I also believe public transit authorities should leave religeon out of advertisement and stick to chewing gum and coca-cola.

[QUOTE=AES;185741]I also believe public transit authorities should ... stick to chewing gum and coca-cola.[/QUOTE]Hehe, is is arguable that coca-cola does more harm that any religion, or non-religion, advertisement could do.

[QUOTE=retina;185743]Hehe, it is arguable that coca-cola does more harm that any religion, or non-religion, advertisement could do.[/QUOTE]

Heh, you may be right, but ko can pay a lot more for ads.

[quote=AES;185731]My read on that artice is that these are city (taxpayer) owned busses.[/quote]Restrictions on free speech in public (taxpayer-supported) places are generally looser than those on speech in private(ly-owned) places.

[quote=AES;185741]I also believe public transit authorities should leave religeon out of advertisement and stick to chewing gum and coca-cola.[/quote]From the article:
[quote]The agency has since decided its advertising policy was outdated, and is changing it to better align with other policies regarding civil rights, the state's obscenity and profanity laws and the diversity of the community, said Brad Miller, the agency's general manager. Prusetti said agency did not specifically address religion in its old advertising policy and that the decision not to have the word God appear in ads has just been continued on over the years. Prusetti said the word God will be allowed under the new advertising policy.

"By honoring the freedoms protected through our shared civil liberties, DART ... will be in the position of displaying messages and images that may be controversial or uncomfortable to some, but legal and protected by civil rights," Miller said.[/quote]

[quote=flouran;185707]Atheist ads taken down from buses:
[URL]http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32418140/ns/us_news-faith/[/URL]

I would be delighted to hear commentary regarding the linked article.[/quote]

It's obvious that the compulsive evangelical atheistic missionaries fail to understand, that the compulsive evangelical missionaries are the worst thing about religions.

The whole point is to not GAF about whether one is alone or not about the way one perceives reality, but to base convictions on sound reasoning, no matter what all the other monkeys say.

[quote]
From the article:[/QUOTE]

I guess we'll all know how to get to church or how to protest it, but have no idea where the titty bar is.

[QUOTE=AES;186807]... but have no idea where the titty bar is.[/QUOTE]It is on Main Street next to the Liquo... oops, I mean, I don't know where it is either. I've never been there, honest.

[QUOTE=retina;186811]It is on Main Street next to the Liquo... oops, I mean, I don't know where it is either. I've never been there, honest.[/QUOTE]

Me neither, I lost the money somewhere. I didn't pay any woman to beat me to death with her camel toe, honest.

[quote=__HRB__;185788]
The whole point is to not GAF about whether one is alone or not about the way one perceives reality, but to base convictions on sound reasoning, no matter what all the other monkeys say.[/quote]

Agree with B but must disagree with A.
In the long run, to protect your own rights, it does matter
what others think or believe.

To that end, I want to challenge anyone who claims that the
non-existence of God cannot be proven.

See next post.

Proof of the Fact that There is No God:

Step 1: If you're an atheist, skip step 2.

Step 2: Accept the fact that there is no God.

Step 3: Try to disprove the fact that there is no God.

Step 4: Answer the question: "Is there a God?" (yes or no)

Step 5: If NO, skip step 6.

Step 6: If YES, go to step 2.

Step 7: Answer the question: "Are you an atheist?" (yes or no)

Step 8: If NO, go to step 1.

Step 9: If YES, go to step 10.

Step 10: Accept the fact that you are an atheist.

Step 11: Go to step 1 or step 12.

Step 12: Stop reading this proof.

IMO, I don't believe in a God that is described by current religions. He's too human-like. Perhaps there is an infinite entity of love in this universe, but I doubt God (if it does exist) is the exact same as it is described by current religions.

The entire notion of religion is stupid.

[QUOTE=flouran;188113]is the exact same as it is described by current religions.[/QUOTE]You are making a bunch of aaumptions. Which religions are you refering to? To dismiss Christianity with a single wave is faulty. The same to dismiss all other of a huge variety. How many Christian sects have you studied up on? How many traditional African religions?

[QUOTE=Uncwilly;188131]You are making a bunch of aaumptions. Which religions are you refering to? To dismiss Christianity with a single wave is faulty. The same to dismiss all other of a huge variety. How many Christian sects have you studied up on? How many traditional African religions?[/QUOTE]

I meant all religions. My point is that every religion's description/perception of God is man-made (that's something that goes without proof) and hence inevitable flawed in some aspect or another, which is the reason why [B]I[/B] am not a member of any specific religious tradition.

[quote=flouran]IMO, I don't believe in a God that is described by current religions. He's too human-like. Perhaps there is an infinite entity of love in this universe,
...
My point is that every religion's description/perception of God is man-made (that's something that goes without proof) and hence inevitable flawed in some aspect or another,[/quote]
Let's say for a moment that there is "an infinite entity of love in this universe". Let's say that entity wanted to communicate to humans that it exists. Is there any way it could do so that would satisfy you that it actually exists and is not a man-made idea?

If you truly believe in a God, no one is going to convince you otherwise.

If you're not sure, at least you see the problem.

If you're sure there's no God but can't prove it, you owe yourself
some thinking.

And if you know there is no God and can prove it, then
no one can ever truly challenge you on this.

[QUOTE=davar55;188213]If you truly believe in a God, no one is going to convince you otherwise.[/quote]I disagree. People are unconverted all the time.

[quote]And if you know there is no God and can prove it, then
no one can ever truly challenge you on this.[/QUOTE]I again disagree. They can ask for the "proof" and challenge that.

[quote=Zeta-Flux;188221]I disagree. People are unconverted all the time.

I again disagree. They can ask for the "proof" and challenge that.[/quote]

1) Yes of course people can be unconverted, but only once they diverge
from "truly believing". Until then, it doesn't happen.

2) Others may attempt to challenge your proof, but if it truly is a proof,
like a mathematical one, it is unassailable.

[quote=Mini-Geek;188192]Let's say for a moment that there is "an infinite entity of love in this universe". Let's say that entity wanted to communicate to humans that it exists. Is there any way it could do so that would satisfy you that it actually exists and is not a man-made idea?[/quote]I see that your question is directed to flouran, but here's my answer if the same question were to be directed to me:

Of course! Just have the entity write a message in 4-mile-high letters across the near side of the Moon tomorrow, for instance. (Surely it could do so without disturbing any of the Apollo sites, couldn't it?)

There are lots and lots of ways any supernatural being of supposedly near-infinite power could show that it actually exists!

Somehow we never get such demonstrations with evidence that holds up under skeptical (non-believer) examination. "Evidence" that's only evident to believers (who "have faith") doesn't count (it fits the competing hypothesis that such an entity is only a man-made idea).

If a reply is that "an infinite entity of love in this universe" would not necessarily manifest itself by making such an unmistakable physical alteration, even on a smaller scale, then that's a convenient excuse -- it fails to falsify the competing hypothesis that such an entity would be only a man-made idea. The preponderance of evidence supports that competing hypothesis.

- -

Here's something similar, the "rabbit in the Precambrian": [URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precambrian_rabbit[/URL] and [URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Precambrian_rabbit[/URL]

[quote=Mini-Geek;188192]Let's say for a moment that there is "an infinite entity of love in this universe". Let's say that entity wanted to communicate to humans that it exists. Is there any way it could do so that would satisfy you that it actually exists and is not a man-made idea?[/quote]
Yes. Through meditation. Prayer is a form of meditation, but many people make the mistake of thinking that God listens to us based on what we *tell* him via our words. The majority of religions portray God as a spiritual being, and as such, God comprehends our state-of-mind. If we are at peace and are in a constant state of love (which can be achieved through any form of meditation), then this entity, if He/She/It exists, *should* be able to communicate to humans.

I believe in a God of love, not in a God based on propaganda used for political reasons. I'd be happy to attend a sermon of any denomination just as long as they don't shove their beliefs down my throat or don't inform me of their beliefs and values in order to meet their own ends.

[QUOTE=flouran;188245]Yes. Through meditation. Prayer is a form of meditation, but many people make the mistake of thinking that God listens to us based on what we *tell* him via our words. The majority of religions portray God as a spiritual being, and as such, God comprehends our state-of-mind. If we are at peace and are in a constant state of love (which can be achieved through any form of meditation), then this entity, if He/She/It exists, *should* be able to communicate to humans.

[b]I believe in a God of love[/b], not in a God based on propaganda used for political reasons. I'd be happy to attend a sermon of any denomination just as long as they don't shove their beliefs down my throat or don't inform me of their beliefs and values in order to meet their own ends.[/QUOTE]

And what the hell is love?

[quote=Orgasmic Troll;188637]And what the hell is love?[/quote]
That's a question you need to answer for yourself.

This ought to be a tribute to Gram Parsins.
I find it deliciously sacreligious!
[URL]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RVEdYYMlOJ4&NR=1&feature=fvwp[/URL]

"Dear God, please confirm what I already believe"

[URL]http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18216-dear-god-please-confirm-what-i-already-believe.html[/URL]

[quote]God may have created man in his image, but it seems we return the favour. Believers subconsciously endow God with their own beliefs on controversial issues.

"Intuiting God's beliefs on important issues may not produce an independent guide, but may instead serve as an echo chamber to validate and justify one's own beliefs," writes a team led by [URL="http://faculty.chicagobooth.edu/nicholas.epley/"]Nicholas Epley[/URL] of the University of Chicago in [I]Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences[/I].

The researchers started by asking volunteers who said they believe in God to give their own views on controversial topics, such as abortion and the death penalty. They also asked what the volunteers thought were the views of God, average Americans and public figures such as Bill Gates. Volunteers' own beliefs corresponded most strongly with those they attributed to God.

Next, the team asked another group of volunteers to undertake tasks designed to soften their existing views, such as preparing speeches on the death penalty in which they had to take the opposite view to their own. They found that this led to shifts in the beliefs attributed to God, but not in those attributed to other people.
[SIZE=4]
Moral compass[/SIZE]

"People may use religious agents as a moral compass, forming impressions and making decisions based on what they presume God as the ultimate moral authority would believe or want," the team write. "The central feature of a compass, however, is that it points north no matter what direction a person is facing. This research suggests that, unlike an actual compass, inferences about God's beliefs may instead point people further in whatever direction they are already facing."

"The experiments in which we manipulate people's own beliefs are the most compelling evidence we have to show that people's own beliefs influence what they think God believes more substantially than it influences what they think other people believe," says Epley.

Finally, the team used fMRI to scan the brains of volunteers while they contemplated the beliefs of themselves, God or "average Americans". In all the experiments the volunteers professed beliefs in an Abrahamic God. The majority were Christian.

n the first two cases, similar parts of the brain were active. When asked to contemplate other Americans' beliefs, however, an area of the brain used for inferring other people's mental states was active. This implies that people map God's beliefs onto their own.

. . .

"These findings help explain why supernatural religious agents are often attributed a physical form and issue edicts that resemble the social practices of the culture from which they emerge," says Jordan Grafman of the US National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke in Bethesda, Maryland, whose team earlier this year [URL="http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126993.100-our-sophisticated-minds-gave-us-religion.html"]linked emergence of religion with the development of "theory of mind"[/URL], the capacity to recognise that other living things have independent thought and intentions.[/quote]As I've said before, there's plenty of evidence that Man created God, but none for the other way.

[QUOTE=cheesehead;197450]"Dear God, please confirm what I already believe"

[URL]http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18216-dear-god-please-confirm-what-i-already-believe.html[/URL]

As I've said before, there's plenty of evidence that Man created God, but none for the other way.[/QUOTE]

The way I like to say it is thus, "God was created in man's own image".

[QUOTE]As I've said before, there's plenty of evidence that Man created God, but none for the other way. [/QUOTE]It appears that you believe the article you quoted backs up that assertion.

It also appears that you have ignored the evidences I've pointed out in the past.

[quote=Zeta-Flux;197459]It appears that you believe the article you quoted backs up that assertion.[/quote]Not quite. The article backs up the first part of my assertion -- that there's evidence that Man created God -- but it says nothing about the second part: that there's no evidence the "other way", meaning that God created Man.

[quote]It also appears that you have ignored the evidences I've pointed out in the past.[/quote]I don't recall your having pointed out any evidence that God exists other than as an idea in human minds, much less that God created Man. Will you please list those evidences for us again?

I recall that once when I asked you for evidence, you told me to ask someone in another forum for evidence. That doesn't count as your having pointed out evidence; it was just deflecting the request somewhere else. (No one in that forum presented any evidence, either.)

In fact, my recollection is that you've never actually described any evidence; you simply claimed that it existed but without specifying what it was. Please don't dodge. Please stop claiming that there's evidence without actually specifying what that evidence is, as you (again) did in the sentence just quoted above.

Why didn't you write, "It also appears that you have ignored the evidences I've pointed out in the past[I], such as evidential fact A, evidential fact B, and evidential fact C[/I]." ? Was it because you can't actually remember pointing out any specific evidence?

[QUOTE=cheesehead;197472]Not quite. The article backs up the first part of my assertion -- that there's evidence that Man created God -- but it says nothing about the second part: that there's no evidence the "other way", meaning that God created Man.[/quote]Thank you for the clarification. In what way does the article (or, more precisely, the research the article is reporting on) back up that first assertion?

[quote]I don't recall your having pointed out any evidence that God exists other than as an idea in human minds, much less that God created Man. Will you please list those evidences for us again?[/quote]After I mention what I consider as evidence, I'm confident you will recall some of these points.

One evidence is testimony of those who have witnessed God. (I seem to recall you pointed out that in a court of law, testimony is a weak form of evidence. I then pointed out that it is, nevertheless, a form of evidence. I cannot recall if we got any further than that.)

Another evidence is personal experience with the divine, such as when He communicates knowledge to us. (I seem to recall you pointed out that people are self deceiving. etc...)

[quote]I recall that once when I asked you for evidence, you told me to ask someone in another forum for evidence. That doesn't count as your having pointed out evidence; it was just deflecting the request somewhere else. (No one in that forum presented any evidence, either.)[/quote]I don't recall having done this; at least not as the only way to receive evidence.

[quote]In fact, my recollection is that you've never actually described any evidence; you simply claimed that it existed but without specifying what it was. Please don't dodge. Please stop claiming that there's evidence without actually specifying what that evidence is, as you (again) did in the sentence just quoted above.[/quote]I don't believe I've done those things.

[quote]Why didn't you write, "It also appears that you have ignored the evidences I've pointed out in the past[I], such as evidential fact A, evidential fact B, and evidential fact C[/I]." ?[/quote]Brevity. I also thought you might recall some of the evidences I suggested last time, but which I've reiterated in this post.

[quote]Was it because you can't actually remember pointing out any specific evidence?[/QUOTE]No. What was the intent behind your question?

[quote=Zeta-Flux;197550]In what way does the article (or, more precisely, the research the article is reporting on) back up that first assertion?[/quote]The opinions people attributed to God varied as their own opinions varied, even though the opinions they attributed to other people did not vary as their own varied -- which is consistent with the hypothesis of a personally mind-generated God having no objective existence outside the mind. (I'm not claiming that the described study had that hypothesis.)

[quote]After I mention what I consider as evidence, I'm confident you will recall some of these points.[/quote]I was too cryptic. The evidence you had presented that I remembered was of the ideas people had of God, not of God's existence independent of human thought as I specified.

[quote]One evidence is testimony of those who have witnessed God. (I seem to recall you pointed out that in a court of law, testimony is a weak form of evidence. I then pointed out that it is, nevertheless, a form of evidence.[/quote]... and psychological science has shown such testimony to be not at all adequate for evidence of objective existence. (Self-delusions and hallucinations, for example. I've personally witnessed testimony about a religious hallucination.)

[quote]Another evidence is personal experience with the divine, such as when He communicates knowledge to us. (I seem to recall you pointed out that people are self deceiving. etc...)[/quote]Again, this is evidence that people have thought something about the idea of God, not that God has an existence other than as a human thought.

I've always willingly conceded that God exists as an idea in human minds. What I asked for was evidence that God exists [I]other than[/I] as an idea in human minds.

[quote]I don't recall having done this; at least not as the only way to receive evidence.[/quote]It wasn't the only way. It was simply what you suggested on one occasion. On other occasions you've not mentioned that.

[quote]No. What was the intent behind your question?[/quote]A frivolous tweak, which was uncalled-for and for which I apologize. I had the momentary idea that you should have recalled that in the past I've pointed out that every evidence you've presented has been of God as an idea in human minds, not of God as [I]other than[/I] an idea in human minds. But that's not a fair expectation, so the tweak was uncalled-for and rude. I'm sorry I succumbed.

[QUOTE=cheesehead;197565]The opinions people attributed to God varied as their own opinions varied, even though the opinions they attributed to other people did not vary as their own varied -- which is consistent with the hypothesis of a personally mind-generated God having no objective existence outside the mind. (I'm not claiming that the described study had that hypothesis.)[/quote]Are you claiming that the consistency of the research with your hypothesis is what makes the research back up your hypothesis? If not, I do not understand your answer to my question. I think I'm missing something from your argument, because is it not the case the the research is also consistent with the idea that people try to understand a real God by attributing to Him (at least, [i]a priori[/i] revelation) the best qualities they can conceive of, and working from there? [Edited to add: I'm not saying this is a good way for people to understand a real God. But it is the easy way out.]

[quote]I was too cryptic. The evidence you had presented that I remembered was of the ideas people had of God, not of God's existence independent of human thought as I specified.[/quote]Again, I do not recall having done this. Let's focus on the present discussion rather than recollections.

[quote]... and psychological science has shown such testimony to be not at all adequate for evidence of objective existence. (Self-delusions and hallucinations, for example. I've personally witnessed testimony about a religious hallucination.)[/quote]We may have finally hit upon a point at which we fundamentally disagree with one another.

I do not disagree with the notion that self-delusions and hallucinations take place. Even commonly. However, I do disagree with the idea that because they take place then this, [i]a priori[/i], disqualifies all testimony as evidence. If you disagree with this, then I think we've finally hit upon our fundamental difference.

Whether such testimony is [b]adequate[/b] for [b]objective[/b] evidence is another question. I was only responding to your claim that "there's plenty of evidence that Man created God, but [b]none[/b] for the other way."

(By the way, I too have witnessed religious testimonies, some being delusions and hallucinations.)

[quote]Again, this is evidence that people have thought something about the idea of God, not that God has an existence other than as a human thought.[/quote]I believe you misunderstood what I was talking about, because I wasn't clear. Let me be more concrete. If, say, you were like Moses and talked with a burning bush, which told you thing you had never before considered and gave you power that you previously did not have, would this not constitute evidence (for you, personally) for the existence of God outside of human minds? [Note: I am not denying the possibility that this conversation was a hallucination.]

[quote]I've always willingly conceded that God exists as an idea in human minds. What I asked for was evidence that God exists [I]other than[/I] as an idea in human minds.[/quote]I hope my previous sentence clarifies that the evidence I was speaking of has evidence of an external component.

[quote]It wasn't the only way. It was simply what you suggested on one occasion. On other occasions you've not mentioned that.[/quote]I do not recall doing this, but as I believe it is a tangent I'll let it drop.

[quote]A frivolous tweak, which was uncalled-for and for which I apologize.[/quote]Thank you.

[quote]I had the momentary idea that you should have recalled that in the past I've pointed out that every evidence you've presented has been of God as an idea in human minds, not of God as [I]other than[/I] an idea in human minds. But that's not a fair expectation, so the tweak was uncalled-for and rude. I'm sorry I succumbed.[/QUOTE]Apology accepted.

[quote=Zeta-Flux;197603]Are you claiming that the consistency of the research with your hypothesis is what makes the research back up your hypothesis?[/quote]Something that is consistent with a hypothesis backs up that hypothesis. Do we need to compare definitions of [I]consistent[/I] and [I]backs up[/I]?

The research did not disprove my hypothesis or was inconsistent with it. Instead, it was consistent with my hypothesis. It provided additional evidence to back up my hypothesis/assertion.

[quote]I think I'm missing something from your argument, because is it not the case the the research is also consistent with the idea that people try to understand a real God by attributing to Him (at least, [I]a priori[/I] revelation) the best qualities they can conceive of, and working from there?[/quote]The study was only of "volunteers who said they believe in God", not of volunteers viewing or otherwise experiencing a real God in objective reality. People who believe in something form ideas about that something. The nature of the God idea is such that people will often attribute the best qualities they can conceive of. (But some people attribute qualities that are _not_ the best they can conceive.)

The very behavior of attributing "the best qualities they can conceive of" (your wording) seems consistent, to me, with contemplating something that is not real. When people contemplate something real, they're less likely to ignore the actual (real) properties of that something. They may imagine idealized attributes for the real something, but there's always the drag of the objective reality.

[quote]Again, I do not recall having done this.[/quote]You probably don't recall it because you claimed it was evidence of a real God. I was the one who pointed out that they were all evidence only of the existence as an idea. You were mistaken about the relevance of the evidence to a real God rather than to an idea. (I'm not claiming you agreed with me.)

[quote]We may have finally hit upon a point at which we fundamentally disagree with one another.

I do not disagree with the notion that self-delusions and hallucinations take place. Even commonly. However, I do disagree with the idea that because they take place then this, [I]a priori[/I], disqualifies all testimony as evidence.[/quote]I said "not at all adequate for evidence of objective existence." I didn't say it wasn't evidence of anything at all (for instance, testimony can be taken as evidence of what a person thinks s/he witnessed, which has reality as an idea) -- just that it's not evidence that is adequate for demonstrating objective existence outside the mind.

[quote]Whether such testimony is [B]adequate[/B] for [B]objective[/B] evidence is another question.[/quote]... and that's what I was writing about (but I could have worded it more clearly).

[quote]I was only responding to your claim that "there's plenty of evidence that Man created God, but [B]none[/B] for the other way."[/quote]There's plenty of evidence that many people think that God created Man, but that isn't adequate to demonstrate that there actually is a real God who actually did create Man.

It used to be that many people thought Earth was flat. The vast multiplicity of those firmly holding that opinion (and vigorously acting upon that opinion, such as by refusing to go on a sea voyage they thought would approach the edge, or by mutinying during such a voyage) didn't constitute evidence that Earth was flat in reality. It eventually turned out that there were other natural explanations for the evidence that they thought was evidence of a flat Earth, plus evidence for a round Earth that many of them had ignored or not noticed or not known about.

The idea that the Earth was flat [I]felt[/I] right, but that didn't make it true. See "Creationism Feels Right, but That Doesn't Make it So: Scientific American" at [URL]http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=creationism-feels-right-but-that-doesnt-make-it-so[/URL]

[quote]I believe you misunderstood what I was talking about, because I wasn't clear. Let me be more concrete. If, say, you were like Moses and talked with a burning bush, which told you thing you had never before considered and gave you power that you previously did not have, would this not constitute evidence (for you, personally) for the existence of God outside of human minds? [Note: I am not denying the possibility that this conversation was a hallucination.][/quote]It would constitute evidence for me personally, at least for a while until I pondered whether it was related to something real outside my body, but not as evidence for anyone else unless that "power" were demonstrable to others. Also, I'm quite aware that I have been mistaken about some things I personally experienced -- I'm capable of misinterpreting events in my mind. (I could cite examples.) So at some point, I would consider how much of the experience I had was of reality outside my mind. I wouldn't expect anyone else to accept that my experience was "real" unless I could produce corroborating evidence that was examinable by others.

I once was in a position of accusing a doctor of malpractice. Understandably, I wasn't believed until I produced evidence that had objective reality that could be repeatably perceived by other people. Once I did that, the doctor's boss took action (of which I know only a small detail, but it was a publicly noticeable detail that was abnormal ... and the timing was exactly right). I [I]believe[/I] that the evidence I provided, taken together with my testimony, persuaded the boss to take action to keep the doctor from hurting other patients, but my mere testimony was completely inadequate without the objective evidence that was consistent with it.

My [I]belief[/I] could be mistaken, but I've seen nothing yet that contradicts it, it comforts me, and [I]it does no harm to believe it AFAIK[/I]. I wouldn't take real action that depended only on that belief rather than on more objective evidence. I might someday search for additional objective evidence that confirms, or at least is consistent with, that belief, but don't care to go much out of my way to do so now. However, such evidence might help me experience closure, so I might seek it when convenient.

[quote]I hope my previous sentence clarifies that the evidence I was speaking of has evidence of an external component.[/quote]No, it was evidence of testimony about a perceived external component. It shows that those people had those ideas, but if there's nothing that can be demonstrated repeatably to anyoone else, it's not really evidence of the existence outside those people's minds.

[QUOTE=cheesehead;197637]Something that is consistent with a hypothesis backs up that hypothesis. Do we need to compare definitions of [I]consistent[/I] and [I]backs up[/I]?

The research did not disprove my hypothesis or was inconsistent with it. Instead, it was consistent with my hypothesis. It provided additional evidence to back up my hypothesis/assertion.[/quote]

It is a fact that the empty set is a subset of every set.

This fact is [i]consistent[/i] with the hypothesis that ZFC is inconsistent.

I would not say that this consistency [i]backs up[/i] the hypothesis that ZFC is inconsistent.

I'll try to get to the rest tomorrow.

cheesehead,

[QUOTE]I said "not at all adequate for evidence of objective existence." I didn't say it wasn't evidence of anything at all (for instance, testimony can be taken as evidence of what a person thinks s/he witnessed, which has reality as an idea) -- just that it's not evidence that is adequate for demonstrating objective existence outside the mind.[/quote]I just realized that I slightly misread what you were saying. I thought you qualified "evidence" with "objective", but I was wrong. However, from the quote below, it sounds like you might have wanted that also. Could you clarify this point?

[quote]... and that's what I was writing about (but I could have worded it more clearly).[/QUOTE]Would you reword the following statement for me? Specifically, try to address the issue of whether there are hidden qualifiers on what forms of evidence you are considering. (I believe you are talking about the objective existence of God, I'm just uncertain whether you allow non-objective evidence.)

Here is the statement I would like reworded: "As I've said before, there's plenty of evidence that Man created God, but none for the other way."

I'll try to get to the rest after work.

[quote=Zeta-Flux;197657]It is a fact that the empty set is a subset of every set.

This fact is [I]consistent[/I] with the hypothesis that ZFC is inconsistent.

I would not say that this consistency [I]backs up[/I] the hypothesis that ZFC is inconsistent.[/quote]Please explain in other terms for those not familiar with Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory with the axiom of choice (or did you mean something else?).

[QUOTE=cheesehead;197712]Please explain in other terms for those not familiar with Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory with the axiom of choice (or did you mean something else?).[/QUOTE]

Don't bother; those familiar and not familiar with Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory are merely waiting for this nonsensical discussion to turn into a poop-throwing contest again.

[quote=Zeta-Flux;197688]I just realized that I slightly misread what you were saying. I thought you qualified "evidence" with "objective", but I was wrong. However, from the quote below, it sounds like you might have wanted that also. Could you clarify this point?

Would you reword the following statement for me? Specifically, try to address the issue of whether there are hidden qualifiers on what forms of evidence you are considering. (I believe you are talking about the objective existence of God, I'm just uncertain whether you allow non-objective evidence.)[/quote]Let's get "objective" straightened out.

I'm using it according to definition 1b at [URL]http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/objective:[/URL]

[quote]of, relating to, or being an [URL="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/object"]object[/URL], phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers [B]:[/B] having reality independent of the mind <objective reality> <our reveries…are significantly and repeatedly shaped by our transactions with the objective world — Marvin Reznikoff> — compare [URL="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/subjective"]subjective[/URL] 3a[/quote]Unfortunately, there is an almost-opposite meaning that was used in medieval philosophy: "[B]1 a[/B] [B]:[/B] relating to or existing as an [URL="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/object"]object[/URL] of thought without consideration of independent existence —used chiefly in medieval philosophy". I am _not_ using that definition.

By "objective", I wish to distinguish things that are not the product of possible deception by self or others.

cheesehead,

[QUOTE]Please explain in other terms for those not familiar with Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory with the axiom of choice (or did you mean something else?).[/QUOTE]As you wish.

In an inconsistent system, every statement is true.

So, take any true fact F, in your system S.

Fact F is consistent with the hypothesis that "S is inconsistent". But this consistency does not, [i]a priori[/i], back up the hypothesis that S is inconsistent.

[Ala Godel, we can even define consistency inside of S, if S is complicated enough.]

If you want a concrete example, take ZFC, or take Euclid's axioms, etc...

[QUOTE=cheesehead;197720]Let's get "objective" straightened out.[/quote]I'm happy to adopt the definition, except the part about "perceptible to all observers". From dictionary.com is the following definition, which I think is a better fit: "of or pertaining to something that can be known, or to something that is an object or a part of an object; existing independent of thought or an observer as part of reality." An item which is objective "can be known" but does not necessarily have to known, or even perceptible to all observers.

[quote]By "objective", I wish to distinguish things that are not the product of possible deception by self or others.[/QUOTE]It seems to me that if an object exists outside the mind then this does not remove the possibility of (self-)deception concerning the object; only some forms of (self-)deception. Especially since, ultimately, our knowledge of the objective interacts with our subjective selves and experiences. (Or if you are a believer in John Locke's philosophy, all our knowledge of everything comes from our subjective experience.) Anyway, I might be going a little off-topic there, so sorry about that.

I understand the point that "objective objects" exist as they are, independent of what we think they should be like, or deceive ourselves (intentionally, or not) into thinking they are like.

[quote=Zeta-Flux;197738]I'm happy to adopt the definition, except the part about "perceptible to all observers".[/quote]I interpreted that as "potentially perceptible to all observers", not that it was mandatory that it be perceptible to all observers. It would be perceptible to all observers who were in a position to be reasonably capable of observing it. It wouldn't require that an object be visible to a blind observer, that a microscopic/telescopic object be visible to an observer without a microscope/telescope, or that a dyslexic observer see all letters in a word in the same order as a nondyslexic observer.

Can you accept it that way?

[quote]I understand the point that "objective objects" exist as they are, independent of what we think they should be like, or deceive ourselves (intentionally, or not) into thinking they are like.[/quote]Okay.

[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YXrU1GFqYEU[/url]

[QUOTE=cheesehead;197743]I interpreted that as "potentially perceptible to all observers", not that it was mandatory that it be perceptible to all observers. It would be perceptible to all observers who were in a position to be reasonably capable of observing it. It wouldn't require that an object be visible to a blind observer, that a microscopic/telescopic object be visible to an observer without a microscope/telescope, or that a dyslexic observer see all letters in a word in the same order as a nondyslexic observer.

Can you accept it that way?[/QUOTE]Those were some of the cases I was thinking about. But there are a few more that make me still a little squeamish about the use of the word "all." How about "potentially perceptible to observers"?

[quote=Zeta-Flux;197750]How about "potentially perceptible to observers"?[/quote]What I'm concerned about (regarding deleting "all") is evidence that's evident only to observers sharing a certain worldview.

What are the few more that make you still a little squeamish?

[QUOTE=cheesehead;197867]What I'm concerned about (regarding deleting "all") is evidence that's evident only to observers sharing a certain worldview.

What are the few more that make you still a little squeamish?[/QUOTE]I'll tell you now that this stuff is fairly off-topic. As we are the only two current participants on this thread holding a discussion, I don't mind continuing my thoughts here. But this is just to tell you that these thoughts are way off-topic, and I'm more interested in your response to my previous posts about consistency and rewording some things you've said.

First, I don't like adding to definitions qualities that may or may not be present in the object being defined. So, from that point of view, I would even find the phrase "potentially observable" to be problematic because, [i]a priori[/i], we don't know that all of the objective universe is observable. (Of course, we would have no knowledge of the non-observable part. So I didn't make a big stink about that.) Things like alternate dimensions which (according to some scientists) are objectively there, but which we will likely never be able to observe directly, might also qualify here.

Second, I'm uncomfortable with universal qualifiers, unless I'm very very sure that the property is truly universal. That's part of one of the reasons I didn't like your initial statement about there being "[b]none[/b] the other way."

Third, I believe there are objective things in the universe that happen very very rarely. On the order of "big bang rare". Once-in-a-trillion-years rare. Would it be fair to say those events are potentially observable to all observers? [Maybe so, maybe not. But I don't want to get into an argument on that point.]

Fourth, along the lines of the first issue, it might be the case that there are one-way observables in the universe. A hypothetical example might be that there are pocket universes we can look in on (because they emit some sort of measurable particles) but which we cannot interact with in any way. So the people in those pockets cannot observe us, even though we are objective beings. [A similar issue is brought up in the movie [i]The Thirteenth Floor[/i], where the question is asked: if we make a machine which simulates life, are those simulations objective intelligent beings? If so, can they observe anything outside of the simulation? Could we just be simulations in someone's computer?]

Anyway, regarding your concern about "evidence that's evident only to observers sharing a certain worldview" let me say the following. I do not want us to conflate "measurements of the objective universe" with "counting as evidence, from those measurements, statements about the universe." If we avoid doing that, I think we should be fine. Now, if you further had concerns with a universe in which some people could perform measurements which others could not because of a certain worldview...I wouldn't know how to address that concern. Would we have built the LHC without a certain worldview about how to perform measurements on the universe? Has everyone been able to perform those same measurements? *shrug* Those are very hard and philosophically difficult questions to answer, I think.

[quote=Zeta-Flux;197937]I'll tell you now that this stuff is fairly off-topic. As we are the only two current participants on this thread holding a discussion, I don't mind continuing my thoughts here. But this is just to tell you that these thoughts are way off-topic, and I'm more interested in your response to my previous posts about consistency and rewording some things you've said.[/quote]"This stuff" and "these thoughts" are too vague an identifier for me to work with. Can you please include at least post numbers instead of just "my previous", so we (I, anyway) won't flounder around just to figure out where ... ?

In post #247, you wrote,

"We may have finally hit upon a point at which we fundamentally disagree with one another"

and

"I do disagree with the idea that because they take place then this, [I]a priori[/I], disqualifies all testimony as evidence. If you disagree with this, then I think we've finally hit upon our fundamental difference."

To me, your use of "fundamentally/fundamental" meant it was important to clarify what I had written that you were referring to. I realized that I'd been slightly careless about some wording in that part, so I set about trying to straighten that out.

To me, all I've written since post #247 has been a continuous effort at that clarification about something [I]you[/I] deemed "fundamental" -- not off-topic at all. I intended to keep writing about what you deemed to be "fundamental" until you declared that the matter was resolved to your satisfaction. I'm trying to be guided by [I]your[/I] idea of what is "fundamental".

So, I'm shocked by your "off-topic" and "way off-topic" declarations, which seem to me to be an abrupt switch from "fundamental" to "off-topic" on your part.

Apparently, to you, somewhere after post #247 what I wrote went "fairly off-topic" and then "way off-topic". I need you to identify what it is that you deem off-topic and what you deem "fundamental", because [I]your dividing line is not at all obvious to me[/I].

[quote=Zeta-Flux;197937] As we are the only two current participants on this thread holding a discussion,[/quote]
You mean ignoring poignant hints like:

[quote=__HRB__;197744][URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YXrU1GFqYEU"][COLOR=#810081]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YXrU1GFqYEU[/COLOR][/URL][/quote]

[URL]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSwJ2rjUSdc[/URL]

marh :

God is God !

[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2fjyjrc_Gkg&feature=player_embedded[/url]

ww

[QUOTE=davieddy;197976]You mean ignoring poignant hints like [a u-tube of muppets singing a song].[/QUOTE]Poignant?! Maybe if you're drunk. LOL!

But yes. That does not count as "holding a discussion" in my mind. Maybe more like a "drive-by-shooting."

----------------------------------

cheesehead,

[QUOTE]Apparently, to you, somewhere after post #247 what I wrote went "fairly off-topic" and then "way off-topic".[/QUOTE]No. What I was saying is that (most of) *my* comments in my previous post, which deal with my thoughts on a very small part of the definition you gave of objective, are not related to the discussion at hand. For example, I did not want to get into a discussion of alternate dimensions.

In other words, even if you completely rejected each and every reason for my dislike of the phrase "potentially perceptible to all observers" I would rather accept that phrase as part of the definition of objective (for the sake of discussion) than to get sidetracked on discussing my points.

So, if you still want to keep it as part of the definition, just let me know.

[QUOTE]"This stuff" and "these thoughts" are too vague an identifier for me to work with. Can you please include at least post numbers instead of just "my previous", so we (I, anyway) won't flounder around just to figure out where ... ?[/QUOTE]1. I would like you to reword the last sentence you wrote, in your first post on Dec. 1, for clarity. (Post # 241.) (The sentence is: "...there's plenty of evidence that Man created God, but none for the other way. .")

2. I would like to know what you think about whether consistency implies evidence, now that I've given you that (counter-)example from 1st order logic. (See my posts #249 and #254.)

[QUOTE=Zeta-Flux;198010]
[QUOTE=davieddy;197976]You mean ignoring poignant hints like [a u-tube of muppets singing a song].
[/QUOTE]

Poignant?! Maybe if you're drunk. LOL!

But yes. That does not count as "holding a discussion" in my mind. Maybe more like a "drive-by-shooting."
[/QUOTE]

Just because [I]Mahna Mahna and the Snowths[/I] happen to be muppets means you likely missed the point. From: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mah_Nà_Mah_Nà[/url]

"[I][...]The song's lyrics contain no actual words, only nonsense (iambic) syllables resembling scat singing.[...][/I]

----------

@davieddy

Let's argue: I claim that zeta-flux is Mahna Mahna, because he believes in a god and cheesehead is The Snowths because he doesn't. I have conjectural evidence to support this, so I dare you to to argue that zeta-flux is The Snowths and cheesehead is Mahna Mahna.

A Word of Advice
 

I encourage the two debaters to pick up a copy of Jean Baudrillard's [I]Simulacra and Simulation[/I]. Although the treatise deals with post-modernist concepts, it does not take much effort to modify Baudrillard's central thesis and argue that God is essentially a form of consumerist simulacrum and hence is "hyper-real" but not actually existent (the word "hyper-real" is explained in depth by Baudrillard).

OTOH, one could also extend Baudrillard's arguments and argue that the entire "existence" of this universe is an illusion, and that beyond this illusion of what we call life lies a reality that we cannot fathom. At one point, we could fathom this reality, but since we have become so entangled in our own lives, we have lost connection with this reality.

Thus, either of the two aforementioned points can be argued to be valid. I hope the debaters will incorporate this into their arguments rather than pedantically argue over terminology.

[QUOTE=cmd;198003]God is God ![/QUOTE]
GOD is REAL

[COLOR="White"]except when declared INTEGER.[/COLOR]


[spoiler]Yes, I know. I just happen to think the old ones are the best.[/spoiler]


Paul

[QUOTE=xilman;198033][spoiler]Yes, I know. I just happen to think the old ones are the best.[/spoiler][/QUOTE]

[spoiler]Liquor? But I hardly know her![/spoiler]

[QUOTE=__HRB__;198036][spoiler]Liquor? But I hardly know her![/spoiler][/QUOTE]Ah, the medium joke. It's not rare and it's certainly not well done.

(With acknowledgements to S&W)


Paul

[QUOTE=xilman;198037]Ah, the medium joke. It's not rare and it's certainly not well done.

(With acknowledgements to S&W)


Paul[/QUOTE]

Knock, Knock ...

[quote=Zeta-Flux;198010]So, if you still want[/quote]What I want now is your detailed explanation of what, in both your and my posts since post #247, is within your definition of "fundamental", and what is within your definition of "off-topic". I don't want to continue until I understand your dividing line.

[QUOTE=cheesehead;198044]What I want now is your detailed explanation of what, since post #247, is within your definition of "fundamental", and what is within your definition of "off-topic".[/QUOTE]

Jeez...

[QUOTE=cheesehead;198044]What I want now is your detailed explanation of what, in both your and my posts since post #247, is within your definition of "fundamental", and what is within your definition of "off-topic". I don't want to continue until I understand your dividing line.[/QUOTE]I'm gonna have to agree with one (and only one) of the heckling spectators on this point. It looks like you are just avoiding answering the two questions I asked.

[QUOTE=Zeta-Flux;198060]I'm gonna have to agree with one (and only one) of the heckling spectators on this point.[/QUOTE]

@Flouran: He means me! Take that, sucker!! You've lost!!! Muhahaha!!!!

@Zeta-Flux: Surely you will also agree with me that Jesus is much more likely to be a zombie with access to a time-machine, than the son of a god.

1. Fact: if you start walking around after being dead for a while, then you are a zombie.

2. Fact: zombies cannot be killed with rusty nails hammered into their hands and feet or getting speared into the abdomen. If, on the other hand, the [I]Spear of Destiny[/I] had perforated Jesus' brain, he would have been really dead. This theory is falsifiable because we can clone Jesus, and check whether sticking a Spear into his head kills him. If it does, then he must be a zombie and cannot be the son of a god.

3. Fact: time-machines exploiting the flux-floating-body-effect (no capacitors!) have enough quantum in them to remove all paradoxes that are usually associated with "being your own father and a spooky ghost" (cf. Holy Trinity). If Philip J. Fry can do it then certainly can Jesus.

EDIT:

[I]This is very similar to the suggestion put forward by the Quirmian philosopher Ventre, who said, "Possibly the gods exist, and possibly they do not. So why not believe in them in any case? If it's all true you'll go to a lovely place when you die, and if it isn't then you've lost nothing, right?" When he died he woke up in a circle of gods holding nasty-looking sticks and one of them said, "We're going to show you what we think of Mr Clever Dick in these parts..."[/I]

-- (Terry Pratchett, Hogfather)

[quote=Zeta-Flux;198060]It looks like you are just avoiding answering the two questions I asked.[/quote]Come on, Z-F, you're just not paying attention.

Your first question/request, according to the latest wording, is

"1. I would like you to reword the last sentence you wrote, in your first post on Dec. 1, for clarity. (Post # 241.) (The sentence is: "...there's plenty of evidence that Man created God, but none for the other way. .")"

In order to reword that, I need to get agreement on "objective", because I want to use that word in the rewording.

I'm not avoiding anything. I've been consistently trying to get your agreement on "objective".

[I]You[/I] brought "fundamental" and "off-topic" into our discussion of "objective", not me. [I]You[/I] declared that there was an "off-topic" block, not me. I have been trying to concentrate on what [I]you[/I] said was "fundamental", only to find that you abruptly declared that the discussion had gone "off-topic", in some manner I cannot yet determine.

[I]You[/I] have twice dodged answering my request that you show me how to determine your dividing line between "fundamental" and "off-topic", which is directly relevant to our discussion of "objective", because [I]you[/I] declared that "this stuff" is "off-topic", but you have not yet defined what you mean by "this stuff".

I haven't dodged. You have. Stop it, and give us a straight answer to the question/request I need answered in order to continue working on my answer to your question/request 1.

I'm not about to just let you cry "off-topic" whenever you wish without your defining the dividing line between "fundamental" and "off-topic". To do so would just allow you to get away with making objections without defining what the objections are.

I have never stopped working toward answering your question/request, but you refuse to define just what it is that justified [I]your[/I] interruption of that work.

Please don't pretend that [I]your[/I] interruption of my working toward a rewording that you want constitutes my avoidance of anything. _You_ are the one blocking progress, not me.

I find it very odd that you haven't simply and straightforwardly told me what was "off-topic" and what was on-topic (that you characterized as "fundamental") between posts #247 and #260. (For instance, you could quote blocks of text with the annotation "off-topic" or "on-topic" on each block. I might then still need some clarification about your reasons for the classifications, but at least you would have given a straightforward first-level answer.)

_You_ objected, but you won't tell me just what you objected to. [I]That[/I]'s avoidance.

[QUOTE=cheesehead;198064]
[i]You[/i], on the other hand, have twice dodged answering my request that you show me how to determine your dividing line between "fundamental" and "off-topic", which is directly relevant to my "objective" discussion, because [i]you[/i] declared that "this stuff" is "off-topic", but you have not yet defined what you mean by "this stuff".
[/QUOTE]
Perhaps you should infer what Z-F is saying. Common sense is rather helpful when you are able to use it.
[QUOTE=cheesehead;198064]
I haven't dodged. You have. Stop it.[/QUOTE]
No, both of you STOP IT. Continue this pointless discussion in a private setting. Not on a public thread.

flouran,

[quote]No, both of you STOP IT. Continue this pointless discussion in a private setting. Not on a public thread.[/quote]Why is it inappropriate to continue the discussion here, even if it is, as you say, pointless? This thread was dead for a long time, so why is it wrong to continue discussion here?

[QUOTE=Zeta-Flux;198068]flouran,

Why is it inappropriate to continue the discussion here, even if it is, as you say, pointless? This thread was dead for a long time, so why is it wrong to continue discussion here?[/QUOTE]

Good question.

Since most other members (excluding yourself and cheesehead of course) are either not participating in your discussion and/or simply could care less, it seems as though your discussion is wholly involving just the two of you and not anyone else. Hence, I suggest you continue the discussion in a private setting. Right now, and other members can support me on this if they want, I am noticing an increasing trend towards defining terminology accurately (more on cheesehead's end though to be honest) rather than debating in a substantive manner.

[quote=flouran;198065]Perhaps you should infer what Z-F is saying.[/quote]When I try that, there's more than one reasonable inference -- so I ask Z-F. Stay out if you can't make a more intelligent comment.

[QUOTE=cheesehead;198070]When I try that, there's more than one reasonable inference -- so I ask Z-F. Stay out if you can't make a more intelligent comment.[/QUOTE]

Don't be a moron. If you want me to stay out of your discussion with Z-F, then please don't debate with Z-F on a [B]public[/B] thread. Leave, and I will stop bothering you.

[quote=flouran;198069]Right now, and other members can support me on this if they want, I am noticing an increasing trend towards defining terminology accurately (more on cheesehead's end though to be honest) rather than debating in a substantive manner.[/quote]How much experience do you have with debating in a substantive manner when the two sides don't agree on the definition of an important term used in the debate?

[quote=flouran;198071]Don't be a moron. If you want me to stay out of your discussion with Z-F, then please don't debate with Z-F on a [B]public[/B] thread. Leave, and I will stop bothering you.[/quote]Care to point out a forum where no one debates anyone else on a public thread?

[QUOTE=flouran;198069]Good question.

Since most other members (excluding yourself and cheesehead of course) are either not participating in your discussion and/or simply could care less, then I suggest you continue the discussion in a private setting. Right now, and other members can support me on this if they want, I am noticing an increasing trend towards defining terminology accurately (more on cheesehead's end though to be honest) rather than debating in a substantive manner.[/QUOTE]

Can you please clarify what is wrong by "defining terminology accurately"? "Debating in a substantive manner" requires the participants to be able to form the same abstractions of substantiationability, otherwise making a connected series of statements to establish a non-trivial proposition is an absurd enterprise.

[QUOTE=cheesehead;198073]Care to point out a forum where no one debates anyone else on a public thread?[/QUOTE]

I have nothing against debate. However, I do have a problem with a debate that goes on and on and on and on...

Most people on forums with decent capacities for intelligence know when to stop their debate if it gets too lengthy.

Poor flouran.

Wants everyone to use [i]his[/i] definitions of "on and on and on and on", "lengthy", "intelligence", and so on ... but can't get anyone else to agree, so shows frustration.

Wow.

Now really! Stop wasting time folks. 24 hour lock on the thread.

Thread open again. Try not to get personal with each other.

[quote=__HRB__;197719]Don't bother; those familiar and not familiar with Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory are merely waiting for this nonsensical discussion to turn into a [b]poop-throwing[/b] contest again.[/quote]

[quote=__HRB__;198025]Just because [I]Mahna Mahna and the Snowths[/I] happen to be muppets means you likely missed the point. From: [URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mah_Nà_Mah_Nà[/URL]

"[I][...]The song's lyrics contain no actual words, only nonsense (iambic) syllables resembling [b]scat singing[/b].[...][/I]
[/quote]

Things (in bold) not to be confused with each other.

[QUOTE=__HRB__;198074]Can you please clarify what is wrong by "defining terminology accurately"? "Debating in a substantive manner" requires the participants to be able to form the same abstractions of substantiationability, otherwise making a connected series of statements to establish a non-trivial proposition is an absurd enterprise.[/QUOTE]No it doesn't and no it isn't.

This one is quite clearly the full half-hour.


Paul

[QUOTE=xilman;198181]No it doesn't and no it isn't.

This one is quite clearly the full half-hour.


Paul[/QUOTE]

Yes it does and yes it is. And that was never a half-hour.

If Zeta-Flux and cheesehead fill pages after pages with meaningless babble, then this is circumstantial evidence in support of theological noncognitivism. By temporarily closing this thread, you have clearly manipulated evidence to support your theological cognitivist propaganda. The least you can do is to realize your conflict of interest and abstain from moderating this thread, otherwise - according to a prominent theological cognitivist theory - you'll end up in the 9th circle of hell with a non-zero probability.

[QUOTE=cheesehead;198064]Come on, Z-F, you're just not paying attention.

Your first question/request, according to the latest wording, is

"1. I would like you to reword the last sentence you wrote, in your first post on Dec. 1, for clarity. (Post # 241.) (The sentence is: "...there's plenty of evidence that Man created God, but none for the other way. .")"

In order to reword that, I need to get agreement on "objective", because I want to use that word in the rewording.

I'm not avoiding anything. I've been consistently trying to get your agreement on "objective".

[I]You[/I] brought "fundamental" and "off-topic" into our discussion of "objective", not me. [I]You[/I] declared that there was an "off-topic" block, not me. I have been trying to concentrate on what [I]you[/I] said was "fundamental", only to find that you abruptly declared that the discussion had gone "off-topic", in some manner I cannot yet determine.

[I]You[/I] have twice dodged answering my request that you show me how to determine your dividing line between "fundamental" and "off-topic", which is directly relevant to our discussion of "objective", because [I]you[/I] declared that "this stuff" is "off-topic", but you have not yet defined what you mean by "this stuff".

I haven't dodged. You have. Stop it, and give us a straight answer to the question/request I need answered in order to continue working on my answer to your question/request 1.

I'm not about to just let you cry "off-topic" whenever you wish without your defining the dividing line between "fundamental" and "off-topic". To do so would just allow you to get away with making objections without defining what the objections are.

I have never stopped working toward answering your question/request, but you refuse to define just what it is that justified [I]your[/I] interruption of that work.

Please don't pretend that [I]your[/I] interruption of my working toward a rewording that you want constitutes my avoidance of anything. _You_ are the one blocking progress, not me.

I find it very odd that you haven't simply and straightforwardly told me what was "off-topic" and what was on-topic (that you characterized as "fundamental") between posts #247 and #260. (For instance, you could quote blocks of text with the annotation "off-topic" or "on-topic" on each block. I might then still need some clarification about your reasons for the classifications, but at least you would have given a straightforward first-level answer.)

_You_ objected, but you won't tell me just what you objected to. [I]That[/I]'s avoidance.[/QUOTE]First, let me apologize for being impatient in the post that generated this response.

Second, while you mention some issues with answering my request #1, I do not see any reference to my request #2. These two requests are (from my point of view) mostly independent of one another. If you have no issues with #2, please answer it. If you do have issues, please elaborate on them.


Third, in pondering how I might give you a "straightforward" answer to your questions I realized I needed to know a little more where you are coming from. Please give me a little lee-way in asking a few simple questions so that I know where you are coming from, and then can frame a proper response (if it is still needed after the questions).

- Do you still wish to include "potentially perceptible to all observers" as part of the definition of objective?

- Do you believe that the phrase "potentially perceptible to all observers" is (a) an essential part of the definition of objective, (b) an important point of clarification but not a part of the definition, (c) an unimportant phrase when discussing objectivity, per se, or (d) something else [please elaborate if (d) is your answer].

- Would you be surprised to learn that someone might answer (c)?

- Would you be surprised that someone named Steve who answered (c) would be willing to believe other people might answer (a), (b), or (d)?

- Would you be surprised that if Tom said he wanted to include the phrase, then Steve would be willing to (for the sake of that current discussion) also include the phrase as part of the definition of objective, and even accept Tom's reasons for inclusion because Steve believed [b]Steve's own reasons for disliking the phrase[/b] were minor/irrelevant/esoteric/off-topic (and not implying that [b]Tom's reasons for inclusions[/b] were irrelevant or off-topic, but may even be fundamental)?