mnkbdky

I do not remember what bloopless means. Perhaps you could give the definitions agains. I could read through the posts to find it, but--to speak frankly--I am not going to.

As far as what properties God has that make he/she/it colorless is concerned, there is no property of colorlessness. Rather it is that any statement of the sort “God is C where C is some color” is false. That is, it is not that God has the property of being non-green, but rather that it is false that God is green.

I am not sure why you think that ascribing God any property is a problem. Something does not have to be material or extended to have a property. Immaterial substances have all sorts of properties. Take propositions for example. The proposition "Columbus discovered North America" is immaterial and has at least one property, namely, the property of falsity. If immaterial substances may have properties and God is immaterial, then, God may have properties. The fact that some properties require objects to have extension does not mean that all properties require extension. A property that God has that does not require extension is the property of being omniscient.

Here is the point of the rape analogy. SF accused the theist of holding onto a thin thread of--unfounded--faith. This statement has a strong connotation of irrationality. SF was accusing the theist of being irrational and holding unjustifiable beliefs. That fact is, this is not so.

In the case of the rape, it would be wrong to the accused if there was no evidence and only the victim's testimony. However, that is not what is at issue. What is at issue is her belief. That fact that there is no evidence does not mean that the victim was not raped by the accused and if he/she was then she has every right to believe it and is justified in her belief. Someone cannot ask her to give up that belief because there is lack of physical evidence. Someone cannot say she is being irrational is retaining her belief that she was raped by the accused. In fact it would be immoral to ask that of her. If you do not think so, go and find someone who has been raped but has no proof of it and tell that person they are irrational for retaining that belief.

We could even take this analogy into child molestation. Let's say some little boy was molested by a Catholic priest at a young age. There is no evidence for it but his experience of the event. Now it would be wrong to punish the priest, because we cannot be sure he did molest the child. However, if he did, the boy is entirely rational in believing he was molested. Furthermore, it would be wrong to tell that boy to give up that belief because there is not proof of it. He is irrational to hold on to that belief.

The whole point of the analogies is to demonstrate that evidence is no criterion for rationality of justification of belief. Evidence is not and cannot be required to be justified in ones belief. Keep in mind that evidence here is defined as the outward public display of proof.

No, I see no problem. Maintaining rationality does not depend on someone’s being able to prove or give evidence for their beliefs. It may be required for somebody else to believe them, but it is not required of the belief holder.

How exactly does something have dragon properties with actually being an existing dragon? Let me give your dragon dragon properties. He has a tail, a head, a long snout, the ability to breathe fire, wings, arms, legs; he is red, has scales, is 15 feet tall, 30 feet long and lives in Poland. All dragon properties require extension. That is, if your dragon had dragon properties then your dragon would necessarily exist in the material world. There is no possible way for a dragon to be immaterial. Dragon properties are necessarily material.

Perhaps this is where you are confused. A theist’s belief is not evidence. The theist is not saying my belief in God should be evidence enough for the skeptic to believe in God. The theist does not think their belief as evidence. Evidence is the outward demonstration of proof.

There is no possible way, that is, it is necessarily impossible that one's own experience be outwardly demonstrable. There is no possible way to demonstrate to someone what it feels like to be poked by a hot iron rod. One can scream out that it hurts. However, one cannot outwardly demonstrate that feeling. They can describe it, but that is not demonstration; rather that is explanation. However, not being able to demonstrate it does not mean that they are not in pain. We take their explanation at face value.

The same goes for the theist. His/her experience, like all experiences, is not demonstrable. He/she may only give an explanation, but an explanation is not evidence.

I think it is demonstrable that Zeus does not exist. I think it is demonstrable that poly-theism is false. However, I do not think it is demonstrable that Islamic God does not exist. The test here I think is in what is claimed to be Allah's (an Arabic word meaning God, not a proper name) word, the Qur'an. If the Qur'an is not historically accurate then either the Islamic God lied or the Qur'an is not meant to be historically accurate, but rather metaphorical. There is debate today as to whether the Qur'an says that Jesus was not crucified. It is accepted by scholars that Jesus was crucified. If the Qur'an says he was not, then, it is wrong. The reason why there is debate as to whether the Qur'an says Jesus was crucified is because it is now accepted by some Muslims that he was indeed crucified and that goes against the common interpretation that Jesus escaped crucifixion and ascended into heaven.

Depend on what type of reincarnation? I do not think the Buddhist version of reicarnation is possible. Hindu reincarnation, that is possible. However, I think there is evidence to suggest otherwise--the rising population for one. If reincarnation were true you would think the population would stay the same from the beginning of time.

Science cannot detect what is immaterial. That must be accessed through the mind, reason.

Thanks,

--mnkbdky

mnkbdky

I am a Christian, orthodox at that. The scriptures do not have contradictions in them. By scriptures I mean the Old and New Testament. I am well aware of what people say are contradiction, however, those are the opinion of the uneducated in that area. A contradiction is something that cannot be resolved. The OT and NT have none of those. This is not claim that there are not problems or inconsistencies.

Take for example the dates of the Kings found in 1&2 Kings and 1&2 Chronicles. The dates given for the times that certain Kings ruled are different in each book. This might appear to some to be contradictory. However, that assumes a common dating process. Just because we have an agreed upon system of dating historical events today does not mean that the ancients did. In fact, everyone had there own system of dating. The kingdom of Israel had their own dating system and the Kingdom of Judah had their own dating system. In fact, both of their dating systems appear to have changed from time to time. So it should be expected that we find different dates for the Kings.

The problem is people see inconsistency and place a standard on the text that was not a standard at the time it was written and scream contradiction. They only do that because they are ignorant. They do not know the cultural practices at the time. History was not recorded the same way back then as it is now.

Most people don't take the time to read why they are not contradiction. Rather, they sit at home on the internet and go to the websites that scream contradiction and never read actual scholars who have devoted there lives to researching such problems.

Problems are not contradictions. Contradictions cannot be resolved, problems can.

Nope. Their belief is not evidence. The experience justifies their belief, in the absence of defeaters--such as the infinite causal regress of the LDS god. If someone were to believe in such a god after it has been proven to be a contradiction, then they are irrational. In the absence of defeaters, though, one may maintain rationality. This is why I think some of my friends still rational. They do not enjoy conversations such as these and therefore have not been made aware of the problem.

My response should be obvious by now. The sensus divinitatis is enough, for me and those who experience God as he reveals himself and those alone.

Thanks,

--mnkbdky

davros4269

mntbdky,

To respond to your response to SecularFuture's last post: science _can_ in fact detect the immaterial. It can detect thought to some degree, computer software (the software itself, not the media or physical ram), and energy, to name only a few.

What science cannot detect is the supernatural.

I won't get into a Biblical debate; Christians are good enough at that with each other But the Bible _does_ have contradictions; it's full of them.

Not only contradictions within and of itself, but also against historical fact as well as science. If one takes a SUPER liberal interpretation of the Bible, then, well, you are still left with oodles of contradictions...just ask your fellow Christians. I've heard many "explanations" for obvious Biblical errors, and I'm really not interested, to be honest. Convincing me that the Bible is any way shape or form the inspired word of an all knowing God is less probable than the existence of god himself, of that makes any sense. I've heard other atheists say that they give a .01 percent chance that _a_ God exists, but a zero percent chance that the Biblical god exists. I certainly agree with the latter.

You said, about the Mormons: Their belief is not evidence.

Then, why is yours? Certainly you won't use the Bible as evidence - you did say that no other evidence is required, that your belief is enough. Obviously, this is not the case, because it doesn't apply to Mormons nor to Dragon Gods of any color. BTW, if the debate is about the existance of God, and you use the innate-sense as your argument, than you are allowed no preassumptions, certainly not preassumptions originating from the Bible such as omnipitence, etc. - if you do, then you have used circular logic and your argument becomes false.

You are certainly correct: My response should be obvious by now. The sensus divinitatis is enough, for me and those who experience God as he reveals himself and those alone.

And it is only enough for you and those like you. It is not evidence nor detection but merely belief.

Will you concede that your innate-sense is only good for you personaly, and not any kind of proof/eveidence/detection/evidence of detection, etc?

Davros

davros4269

Bloopless is my attempt to avoid a definition debate. I asked you to place energy, humans, plants and rocks, angels and god into 2 categories, or something similar. I place angels and gods into category called, "bloopless". While one could argue that they have some similarties with, say, energy, it's the differences that I am intersted in. first, everything from the non-bloopless category material or not, _can_ be detected.

God can't have any properties relating to any holy texts if you want to use the innate-sense-of God argument. If he/she does, then you are using circular logic, in which case I call foul and will not accept the argument. No, being omniscient does in fact require Biblical or other book support. It is a specific property of a god. No Bible, no omniscience. Where else would this idea come from? Certainly you won't argue that the Bible is just a rewording of more ancient religions?

I understand that the rape case wasn't to be used in a court-setting. My analasys holds, however. We can not be sure if she was guilty or not, we can only come as close to the truth as science will allow. In the future, perhaps we can probe her brain, until then, we must use what tools we have. The same with your god - lets say you are right - you do have a sense of the really real god. Without some evidence you can't show anyone else this, which leads one to ask, "why does god make himself so damn hard to detect?", and, "why are you so special that he communicates with you?"

Yes, evidence can be used to justify one's belief. It's what seperates us from the "crazys". They tell folks with scizophrenia that if they see something that can't be real, like a ghost, to ignore it, knowing that ghosts aren't real. This is an actual therapy that works for some. The boy is a sad case. Regardless, his belief alone will never be enough to justify the act, outside of his own brain.

If god is merely confined to just your brain, then he is pointless and insignificant, as I've said before.

There is also no possible way for you god to be omnipresent! This is less silly than a sueprnatural dragon? Supernatural, not immaterial. He can be anything that my innate-sense tells me he is.

You said:
Perhaps this is where you are confused. A theist’s belief is not evidence. The theist is not saying my belief in God should be evidence enough for the skeptic to believe in God. The theist does not think their belief as evidence. Evidence is the outward demonstration of proof.

That is not what you said earlier - you said that your innate-sense-of-god _is_ in fact evidence, and, it's evidence enough. So you agree than that your belief is just that, a belief, and that you can provide no evidence at all of god? If so, then I say god doesn't exist.

Any argument that you use to disprove Zeus, I can use to disprove your god, if disproving either is possible at all, which I'm not sure it is.

The Koran and the Bible have fundemental contradictions against each other. Doesn't the Koran specifically mention that christians are hell-bound, but that Christ is a prophet, yet, is God or his son? The two gods are different gods, even though they share some scripture. If relevant committies get together and rewrite a single book, which includes parts of both books, so be it. However, this human-intervention is one reason why I don't accept the Bible in the first place.

Scholars are mixed as to wether there was a person named Jesus Christ at all, and as to wether he committed any supernatural acts there is no no evidence.

You said:
Depend on what type of reincarnation? I do not think the Buddhist version of reicarnation is possible. Hindu reincarnation, that is possible. However, I think there is evidence to suggest otherwise--the rising population for one. If reincarnation were true you would think the population would stay the same from the beginning of time.

Good points - you are using science to base your philosophy on - that is a good starting point for anyone to understand the universe. If you continue along those lines, you will also see that the very idea of god and other miracles and supernatural acts in general are silly.

finally, since you ignored some of my previous posts, let me give you some highlights.

I called your way of thinking provincial, you said it was instead "personal". You accepted that idea of aliens and other animals being sentient, but said that if they do not have a sense-of-god that god chose not to reveal himself to them.

I say that this is provincial, it's making mankind "special". If we meet aliens that aren't Christian, I think we can safely say that god is at least not omnipresent. Heaven, hell, good, evil - it's all very provincial and really only applies, if at all, to humans on planet on earth in this solar system in this galaxy.

Further, you cite the ideas of the ancients often - these ideas were stepping stones to our current place. The ancients did not know the vastness of the cosmos, nor that there were other stars, that the sun is _just_ a star, that there were other planets around those other, that the earth is _just_ a planet and so on and so forth. The didn't understand the microscopic nor the macroscopic. Basing modern philosophy on ancient narrow vision is a bad idea. I'm sure that religions would be quite different if they have to incorporate the possibility of intelligent aliens, for example.

Finally, you did not address my point about artificial intelligence. I challenged you to find a single atheist+scientist which thinks we can never have true AI or RI. As I told Paul, we have an understanding of primitive brains with less connections and neurons, all we need to do is go up the ladder of complexity until we get to our brain and apply what we have learned to machines. If you zoom in, our brain follows the same laws of nature that anything else does, there is no magic there. I asked why you would even consider that we cannot replicate this some day? Would this "brain" also have an innate-sense-of-god? Perhaps we can construct specificaly to test you theory?

I answer all of your questions, show me the same respect. Short on time - I realize that this has silly spelling and other errors.

Tootles,

Davros

mnkbdky

Your wanting to avoid a definition debate is quite odd seeing as you are trying to categorize or define a category, namely, bloopless--which I think means undetectable.

I am still not sure exactly what bloopless means.

Also, could you explain why you think energy and software are immaterial.

It is interesting that you say we cannot ascribe omniscience to God without the bible. Plato thought God was omniscient, so did Aristotle and so did Plotinus. There were and are also many indian philosophers who thought and think God is omniscient. They did not have the bible and they came to this conclusion based on reason or philosophical argument. I am not claiming they were talking about the same God, however, they do recognize that if God were to exist he would be omniscient.

Actually it was meant to be in a court setting. It does not matter were you put it, if the victim was raped they have the right to believe they were regardless of evidence.

Let me repeat that this is not an argument about whether there is evidence that God exists. It is an argument about what is needed to be justified in ones beliefs. Evidence is not and cannot be required for justification of ones beliefs.

You cannot be sure but she can.

I never said evidence could not be used. It is only that evidence can not be a necessary requirement for rationality or justification of ones beliefs.

What act? If he was molested he has the right to believe that he was without evidence. He belief is justified.

How is omnipresence impossible? And what is a supernatural dragon?

If you are going to say that I said something please quote me. I do not remember saying that the sensus divinitats is evidence. I have tried to use evidence to mean "the outward public demonstration of proof" consistently.

I am not sure why aliens who are not Christians would prove he wasn't omnipresence. That is almost as bad as the logic SF used to prove God was thought. That is, your argument is

God is omnipresent
There are aliens from outerspace who are not Christians
Therefore, God is not omnipresent.

I am not sure how the conclusion follows.

You want an atheist that believes that A.I. cannot acheive consciousness; How about John Searle? He has a very famous argument called the Chinese box that argues against the concpet that A.I. could ever "think." He argued this in his book The Rediscovery of the Mind in 1992. I have not read this book but I have read his argument.



Thanks,

--mnkbdky

davros4269

mnkbdky,

You miss the point of bloopless. It makes a distiction between the supernatural and immaterial, without debating meanings. Often in my pages of response to you i've mentioned that nothing is similar to angels and gods; nothing that we know of. Energy might share the immaterial property with angels and gods, but energy is detectable. You are sorta using what I meant out of context - it was a response to your post 3 posts back or so...it isn't relevant now, but I require it again, I'll remind you

Software and energy are immaterial - we have discusses this, why do you ask the question as if you don't recall? You gave an energy 101 response to me, stating something like, "how can you say that energy is immaterial"? To which I responded for you to explain to me what energy smells, looks, tastes like, etc. I was again making a distinction between the immaterial things which are detectable and those which are not, like dragons, gods and angels.

As a side note - it's an intersting debating technique you are using, I'll call it reagon-syndrome, "I don't recall...i don't recall...i don't recall..."

You do know what bloopless means, I'd wager you just don't much like it. Let me tell you for the third time. Put the things I've mentioned into two groups, then, explain the difference. That difference is bloopless. That definition is 100% accurate, like the symbol for PI. The PI symbol represents the absolute solution to the pi quotient, if you can call it that. Once you put a value in, like 3.14, you only approximate. Bloopless is a technique to avoid useless debate about what in the heck supernatural and immaterial REALLY mean.

You made it very clear that your experience of god is _detection_, but you muddled the waters by offering varying interpretations of the word detection. My claim all along has been that your innate-sense-of-god is not a proof, not does this make god detectable. If you agree with this, then I will consider the debate over as I've proved my point. You use different words to mean the same thing. Recall how you told and myself that any netative statement can be made gramatically positive? This was an attempt, in my opinion to muddle the issue again. Because we all know, that such a positive statement requires as much effort to prove as does it's completely equal negative statement.

You said: I never said evidence could not be used. It is only that evidence can not be a necessary requirement for rationality or justification of ones beliefs.

You have said that it is not needed to justify ones own beliefs to oneself. That is complety obvious and in no need of debate. Of cousre the boy has personal evidence of being molested - he experienced it, barring mental disorder, etc.

It's when the notion tries to leave his brain that we have problems. Now we are back to the very first post I replied to you - If everyone has their own personal internal god, then we have 6 billion gods and still zero acceptable evidence of god.

As for the rape victim, you said, "you cannot be sure, but she can". Again, barring any mental disorders, sure. She would, we would assume, know if she were raped or not. But this has no meaning to anyone else. What are you trying to debate, anyway, in general?

Are trying to say that you can believe anything you want? I have no way of knowing if she was raped, nor if you experience god. Neither are important. Your personal-in-house thoughts don't prove god, nor provide any detection - I think if you look back over the debate you will find this is the crux of the issue.

However, if I were to apply science, I could say her rape was plausible, then, search for evidence.

As for god, I would say the idea is unplausible at the outset. Of course, even if I would think otherwise, there still is no evidence, so, where are we now?

You said:
I am not sure why aliens who are not Christians would prove he wasn't omnipresence. That is almost as bad as the logic SF used to prove God was thought. That is, your argument is

God is omnipresent
There are aliens from outerspace who are not Christians Therefore, God is not omnipresent.

Try it like this:

God is omnipresent
Therefore, naturally, god is everywhere
If god is the Christian god, then he must be, via the Bible, the only god, the one true god, above all others.
Aliens land and they aren't christian
...

I won't finish it becaue there are many ways to go from here, but can you honestly tell me that this would not be an affront to your belief?

You also failed to respond to my claim of your ideas being "provincial". In all of the universe, on all possible planets, you are telling me that if other sentient beings, capable of having religion, aren't Christian, that you would not feel threatened? You said once that this must mean that god didn't have a personal relationship with those aliens.

I say it is because all earth-based religions of which I am familiar are provincial, not taking into consideration he vastsness of time and space, because when folks invented them, they had no understanding of the vastness of time and space.

Your beliefs remind me of this medicine man I saw in a documentary once. He thought his tribe had an understanding of the universe, and anything outside of his tribe, including big modern cities up the river, were false!

Concerning John Searle - interesting, I may have to condede this point. Not the point about AI/RI, but about your ability to find a quote, but first, some conditions.

When did he write his argument? I assume it was recently, after the advent of modern biology and electronics, correct?

Further, is he a scientist? I say this because we all know idiot atheist - I know one who doesn't know logic from earthworms. That man would not be justified, for example. If you have anything handy, post the man's argument, or, reproduce it in your own words.

Actually, do tell me in your own words why we can't achieve artificial sentience? What about our brains, which are made from basic elements, arragned just-so, is not reproducable? What is the "magical" bloopless component that makes us "think", in your estimation?

I saved the omniscience/Plato item for last:

First, would you likely believe in omniscience if not for the Bible? Much of greek philiosphy doesn't play nice with the Bible.

Second, even if these ideas did not come from the Bible per-se, they are still properties of god that must be pre-assumed for the argument to work, therefore, it's still circular logic.

Finally, you actually asked, How is omnipresence impossible? And what is a supernatural dragon?

How is omniscience _possible_? It isn't even plausible, and has no evidence to back it up. My supernatural dragon - actually, he is bloopless, not supernatural, is the god of which I have an innate-sense. He is far knowing, but not all knowing. He is vast, but not infinetly so. And he is bright bloody _red_.

The Christians and the greeks were wrong about _my_ god...

Actually, let me add these: I await your methods of disproving Zeus and poly-theistic gods in general. I also await evidence of your "uniqueness over time and the soul" idea as well...

Tootles,

Davros

mnkbdky

Once again, before you say I have said something, quote me! Do not be putting words in my mouth! Either re-present me correctly or do not re-present me at all.

I recall giving you a lesson on what energy is. In fact I recall making the argument that energy is material. Furthermore, I recall proving that point. If you would like I will give you the name of some science books that also say energy is material.

I don't think I have to give an argument for software being material, but I will. Computer software is a program that is located on a disk that is either magnetic or light reflective. A program is written code (Floppy or CD or some other sort). The program is actual a code. The code consists of language which is then translated into binary code which consists of arranged zeros and ones. Without the written spatial code the software does not exist. Software is written language which is spatially located which is to say it has extension.

Now let me explain to you what immaterial means. Something that is immaterial has no spatial location. Anything that is located in space is said to have extension and must necessarily be material.

Let me put in syllogistically,

Everything that has extension is material
energy and software have extension
Therefore, energy and software are material.

If you are going to make claims such as energy and software are immaterial you must give arguments. Energy and software are not immaterial, they are material.

Your conclusion that God is not omnipresent still does not follow from your premises. In order to prove that God is not omnipresent you would have to show that there is somewhere where God does not exist. Merely pointing out that aliens do not know or believe in this God is no argument against omnipresence. You can find people who don't believe or know the Xian God here on earth--you for example. Your argument is something like this:

The Xian God is supposedly omnipresent
Davros is not Xian
Therefore, God is not omnipresent

This is the worse logic ever. Do you know how to form a valid syllogism? Let me show you how to get an argument you want.

If the Xian God is omnipresent then he exists everywhere
The Xian God does not exist in Nebraska
Therefore, the Xian God is not omnipresent.

Maybe we should use aliens

If the Xian God is omnipresent then he exist everywhere
The Xian God does not exist in Alpha Centauri
Therefore, God is not omnipresent

This is modes tollens or denying the consequent. This is a valid argument. However, it is challengeable. The theist would probably ask you how you determined God was not in Nebraska or Alpha Centauri.

Saying that someone does not believe in God is not argument against God's omnipresent not because of any religious reason, but because it is logically invalid.

This would not threaten my knowledge of God. For one there are peoples here on earth, who do not believe in the Xian God. Why would a space alien who did not believe shake that knowledge? Why does their coming from space even matter? The whole line of questioning is illogical. From a logical point of view it does not matter where one hails from.

The reason why human religions privilege humans is because they the doctrines are concerned with humans. They don't mention aliens because they are not concerned about them. The bible, qur'an, upanishads tells the story of humans and their relationship with their God. There is no need to mention aliens.

Your objections are really no objections at all.

He wrote his argument in his book The Rediscovery of the Mind in 1992.

John Searle is a philosopher of mind and language who teaches at the University of California, Berkley. You might also want to check out the works of Jaegwon Kim and Scott Sturgeon.

I am not going to post Searle's argument. I really don't care about that topic. If you are interested go and read his book. Then look at the authors he sites and read their books.

If you want to talk about this start a new thread. See what people say. Perhaps I will comment there.

And just where do you think we get logic? If we made it up then it is of no use to us. If we created it then an appeal to logic is circular. If logic is a law (immaterial at that) outside of us then how do we get logic? We must be able to detect it by using our mind to "see" it.

Do you think it circular to think that modes tollens or ponens is a valid law of logic. Do you just assume it is valid? No. It was discovered by the mind of humanity. No other species on earth knows it. Reason separates us.

The same goes for discovering truths about God.

Again, why the switch from omnipresence to omniscience?

Further, here is a quote from you saying your dragon is supernatural

or

I wonder Why I would think you thought your dragon was supernatural? Hmmm....

You are doing a good job at describing something that is logically impossible; a dragon without anything that makes him a dragon (e.g., dragon head, wings, eyes, legs arms,) and yet has dragon properties--contradiction.

Listen, both you and SF have some serious problems with logic. You do not even now how to build a valid argument or realize when you are making statements that are contradictory. You just claim things with no support.

Why is omniscience not impossible? Because it is not a contradiction to say that one knows all there is to logically know. Anything that is not a contradiction is possible.

Why is omnipresence not impossible? Because it is not a contradiction to say that something exists fully everywhere.

Why is it not impossible to be omnipotent? Because it is not a contradiction to say that something has the power to do everything that is logically possible.

It is not impossible that a being have these properties.

Anything that is not impossible is possible. One might think that such a being is improbable, but that is not the same thing as impossible.

Thanks,

--mnkbdky

davros4269

mnkbdky,

Let me just ask you, then, outright, instead of mis-quoting you. Besides what you think in your head, do you have any evidence of god? Is got detectable? If you don't realize anything else, understand that i don't consider your thought of god in your head detection.

I think that oceans, plants and planets exist. So do you. We can both test for them, if we wish and prove them to each other. Apply the same to god and dragons what have you got? Since everyone agrees that oceans, planets and plants exist, lets call this a default condition. The default condition is that god does not exist - proving it's existence would require a herculean effort. More on this below.

As to energy, lets not get into the definiton debate - we've avoided it this long, more or less, lets keep it that way! Energy is not bloopless, angels are. What does energy look like? What does it smell like?

As for computer software, I have you there my friend. I majored in computer science and I have a pretty good grasp of how a computer works, from the electronics on up

Your statements about software reisiding on plastic and such is basically right. However, this is _no_ different than thought. Scratch the disk and you screw the software. Stick an ice pick on someone's frontal lobe and you screw the software! Thought is electrical impulses as well as electro-chemical and protein based, as I'm sure you know. Thought is bound to the brain. no brain, no thought! The software running in a computer is immaterial,as thought is, yet both are detectable. We can't really dechipher thought yet - onlt detect it's presence, but work is already being done to detect more, as I'm sure you are aware. Since all brains are wired different at the "local" level, it will be tricky to make a general system that can detect thought, but why would you doubt it can be done, based on current work? And/or, perhaps you can explain how thought running through neurons is different than software running through wires - and of cousre I don't mean the obvious differences?

you said: Your conclusion that God is not omnipresent still does not follow from your premises. In order to prove that God is not omnipresent you would have to show that there is somewhere where God does not exist.

Correcto-mundo, comrade! I would have to prove the negative, which as you know, is near impossible. I approach the problem like Aurthor C. Clarke does - after a certain point, I quit looking, accepting merely what the default position is that god doesn't exist and isn't in fact omnipresent. Why take it on faith that god exists and spend time looking? He doesn't present himself with any evidence, at least thus far, until I have it I choose not to believe, based on current evidence. Why would I? Why do you?

You said:
This is modes tollens or denying the consequent. This is a valid argument. However, it is challengeable. The theist would probably ask you how you determined God was not in Nebraska or Alpha Centauri.

lol, and I would then ask, "how do you know he exists on earth!"

Look, I'm not trying to form a "valid syllogism" How would I know? Because I would ask the creaturs from said planets/star systems if they had a religion. If they answered yes, I would ask them to describe said religion. If religion differs from Christianity than I agree with my assessment that Christianity is provincial to certain regions of little planet Earth. What makes a mere human as yourself possibly think that _your_ god is also the god of any race we may meet? This isn't merely improbable, it's not even plausible.

Of cousre, sure, right, you could say that god merely doesn't his omnipresence felt in other star systems and again, ask me and the aliens to prove a negative...

Right! This would not threaten my knowledge of God. For one there are peoples here on earth, who do not believe in the Xian God. Why would a space alien who did not believe shake that knowledge? Why does their coming from space even matter? The whole line of questioning is illogical. From a logical point of view it does not matter where one hails from.

Correct again - this is one good reason to not believe in a Christian god. Space aliens is not illogical because it points to the tribal provincial nature of Christianity. Any group that thinks their god is the god of the whole universe, of which earth is an insignificant part, is provincial.

Look at it this way, out of all the possible religions in all the universe, you somehow know that your god, which you have no evidence for, which you merely "feel" internaly, is the _one_?

It is entirely logical to ask how your god would apply to: sentient animals besides humans, be it extinct pre-humans or chimps, etc., alients, and machines (which will have the ability to think in the future). Do you really expect me to buy that humans are god's "chosen" people? What evidence have you?

If god is everywhere and knows everything, he sure doesn't act like it

You said: John Searle is a philosopher of mind and language

I may check that out, but if he is philosopher, I may not accept his argument Philosphy based on something other than science (yes I am assuming here, since I know nothing about him), is mostly worthless.

I could simply say that you don't really exist, therefore I win the debate - see the problem? You told me once not to mix science and philosophy, but I do, and will, and you do and did as well, when you used population to show to yourself that reincarnation of one form isn't likely to be true. I merely apply science to god itself.

You have failed to tell me how your thoughts of god are diffrent than my thoughts about a red dragon? Is my red dragon _impossible_?

I'm sorry if you find my "logic" disturbing but there is nothing you can say about your god that I can't say about my red dragon god - they are both bloopless and not detectable.

Omnixxxxx possible, but not probable?? Huh? Lets assume you are correct - why assume something so completely and utterly improbable as god?

Further, if we apply our strict-philosophical metaphysical magical "logic" to the real world, it breaks down.

Is it _possible_ that the center of the sun has a large grapefruit with the same mass as the inside of a star, capable of withstanding enourmous pressure and heat? Perhaps it's even a nuclear fruit! According to raw logic, yes!

How would we go about testing this? We certainly could, at some future point. Why would I , however, accept this???

Why would I accept an omnixxx god? Further, since god is not detectable, does it matter? If we can never establish for certain if he is everywhere or not, what's the point?

I can forever say that there is an invisble red supernatural dragon god floating above me, but, where does that get me? He is insignificant.

Try this angle: considering how inaccurate human memories are, and given the fact that feelings of awe, presence, tunnel with white light at the end, etc., can be reproduced in experiment at will, how do you know, without outside evidence, that you have an innate-sense-of-god?

If I saw a ghost, I would consider it instantly an illusion of my brain and ignore it because the default position is that ghosts and gods don't exist. Without any evidence, how can they?

BTW, you haven't addressed this point yet - replace all "god" with "gods" and every argument we've made is the same, no? Your "extensionless" vauge notion of god could be 100 gods - you still havent proven that poly-theistic gods don't exist. As you know, the argument for causaility and design allow them - why not believe in many gods and become hindu or something instead of Christian?

Tootles for now,

Davros

mnkbdky

What do you not understand about me asking you to quote me if you are going to say what I told you! I never said any such thing. Rather I said,

and

Neither of these quotes says that you cannot you use science in philosophy. Rather what it says is that science deals with what is physical and metaphysics deals with that which is after, beyond the physical. When talking about reincarnation it is perfectly fesible to ask, if we are reincarnated then why does the population rise. That is using science to show that the person who believes in reicarnation must deal with this. Science cannot tell us whether or not reincarnation is possible. That is a philosophical metaphysical question. In order for reincarnation to be possible their must exist a soul that can go from body to body. The soul is what maintains identity.

You really must stop saying that I said things that I did not.

Actually I have alread shown that your red-dragon is a contradiction. Would you care to amend it more?

Your objection are immature and the result of bad philosophy.

God is hypothesized for several reason; 1) the explanation of the the universe, 2) the explanation of why anything exists at all, 3) the explanation of why so many seem to experience or believe in a god, and there are many other reasons.

What does you contradictory red-dragon seek to explain? The two are not even comparable

I think you have proven this several times by attributing saying to me that I have never uttered.

The point of this argument was not to say that the existence of God can be proven or that the existence of polytheism could be disproven. The point was that God experience justifies one in their belief that their God exists in the absence of defeaters.

You have already conceded this point and SF couldn't handle it so he got frustrated.

Furthermoe, I have already said that I do not think any of the theistic arguments work.

It seems to be the debate is over. I have gotten my two opponent to concede my point, namely, that belief in God is justified given God experience. Evidence that somebody else religion is false is not needed. Neither is evidence that your religion is true. Given the religious experience one is justified in their belief that their religion is true in the abscence of defeaters. This applies to all faiths. If it can be shown that their concept of God, gods, nirvana, or sunyata is false or logically impossible they must give up that belief or be irrational.

This was the argument. Evidence is not needed to be rational.

There is no reason for you to believe in God or any other religious doctrine until you either experience him/it or are convinced by the arguments for it.

I, as an Xian theist, wish you would believe in God so that you may ejoy eternal life with him. However, I do not care--that is, my life is not a waste or ruined--if you choose not to believe. In fact, I think you are justified in that belief. You are not irrational for being an atheist.

Thanks,

--mnkbdky

mnkbdky

Let me also say this about the above. If one is justified in their belief in regard themself then they are also justified in their belief to others.

That is, if there belief is justified it is justifiable to all. Others do not have to believe the blief holder in order for them to say the belief holder is justified in there belief.

A belief cannot be both justified and unjustified. That is a contradiction. If the belief holder is justified in regard to themself then all must regard the belief holders belief as justified.

You cannot say the belief holder is justified in regard to themself but not justified in regard to others. That is a contradiction.

Thanks,

--mnkbdky