Soul Invictus

The latter. However again I would definitely be interested in someone proving an ambiguous concept.

Soul Invictus

I think this would have saved a lot of thread. I could concur that wouldn't be a problematic stance, however I would still maintain that when entertaining issues that are not matters of fact, it will be a stance based on what is not known, thus a matter of opinion.

wade-w

Keep the conversation civil. I don't want to see any more insults here!

Soul Invictus

Well, although opinions may entail evidence, I don't find that much difference between distinguishing a wholly identifiable difference from a belief. Beliefs, as well, will rely on some sort of criteria...not necessarily evidence per se, but a statement of facts, or surrounding issues, that is held as some kind of source, or having evidence-like qualities. (See my example below) I wouldn't want you to equivocate belief and opinion for discussion's sake, because down the line, I see you posted that a belief would be to make a positive claim, which I'm wondering how to reconcile this.

To use a different example, I do not believe we should have invaded Iraq. So my belief is we should have stayed out of Iraq. I would also assert my inclinations as that my opinion is that we should have not gone into Iraq. I feel all three phrases are interchangeable as that they would accurately display my sentiments concerning the issue. Concerning this issue we must present the facts or events from prior activity, and interpret the facts of the present situation to determine the course of action for the future. I don't know that this will be analogous to reviewing evidence though...

None of these would be positive claims, so I don't know if it would help in understanding your cause to make the terms synonomous. But then I guess we're going to have to go to the initial issue of distinguishing between a belief and an opinion, if we can agree that there is a material difference between the two, if there is one at all.

Goliath

Soul Invictus,

Your "fact vs. opinion" diatribe is still irrelevant to the issue at hand until you prove that it is impossible to prove that any kind of god exists.

Sincerely,

Goliath

Soul Invictus

I'll quote a previous reply made by myself on this.

I said:

"Unless God were to manifest him/her/it self unto man, we all have no evidence to refute the others' claim, so it is my contention that atheists have judged that with the lack of evidence that there is no God. The reason why atheists can't know there is no God is because there is no agreed upon criteria as to what/who God is nor is there any substantive, tangible [emphasis added] proof for either party. So atheists could no better prove with empirical, factual, tangible evidence that there is no God, than the theists who adamantly insist that God exists"


I did not say that it was impossible to prove that any kind of god exists, so don't hold me to a standard that I didn't set.

Once there's a consensus on how to define God, how can God be proven? That's why I asked you before what would be the attributes or criteria of God. You can't prove or validate what's not defined. Also God becomes verifiable once we are able to perceive this supernatural phenomenon with out natural senses, and this experience is transferable. (Meaning that you don't meet the proof burden if you have a "spiritual" insight i.e. holy ghost type experience, because this is not quantifiable, or tangible on the natural realm.

I see you're stalling on replying on all responses again. Are you going to reply to Steve D or my reply about beliefs vs opinions at all, or are you going to haggle on this solely?

Goliath

Soul Invictus,

Do you not read my posts? Are you lowering yourself to lying?

Again:

Do not ever again say that you've never claimed that it is impossible to prove that any kind of god exists!

A god is a supernatural creature that has created the universe or is capable of being worshipped.

A creature is supernatural if it exists outside of the observable universe.

Can you prove that such sensory perception is possible?

You are doing nothing more than accusing me of what you yourself are guilty of!!! It is you, sir, who is stalling about proving that it is impossible to prove whether or not a god exists! Until you do so, your spiel about "fact vs. opinion" is irrelevant to the issue at hand!

Amuse me--and do me a favor--and please, pretty please, with sugar on top, present your argument as to why atheism is a belief.

Sincerely,

Goliath

SteveD

Well, Goliath has not answered my last question but I will venture forth with what I think.

I would define a belief as making a positive claim that rests on insufficient grounds to produce certainty.

I consider an opinion to be synonymous with this.

Lacking grounds to produce certainty, one would be perfectly justified in withholding judgement. In which case I would say that they have no belief or no opinion.

In regards to the existence of god(s), since it appears that there is insufficient evidence to establish certainty, withholding judgement is a reasonable position and conforms with the typical definition of weak atheism, i.e. lacking belief in god(s). This could also be stated as having no opinion on the existence of god(s).

I think that this also reflects Goliath's postition but he would have to confirm that.

Steve

Soul Invictus

Goliath,

First, I'd like to address that in my quote:

Also God becomes verifiable once we are able to perceive this supernatural phenomenon with out natural senses, "

out was mistyped. it should have read OUR. Trying to reply to quickly caused for this, so my apologies if this caused any difficulties. I will say that using nor was a bit much. I should have typed "thus." That would allow for a future condition of God's ability to be proven to come to fruition. However somehow I think you know this, as I have previously acknowledged THAT particular error the FIRST time you pointed it out, so I was replying under the auspices that I inaccurately portrayed my sentiments.( I guess my response should have been I never MEANT that.) Not to mention I replied a few pages back that:

"If there is no universal generally accepted definition on who and what God is, than how would God be proven? I'm curious. God thus far has not been proven because we have no working criteria to describe God to prove God. "

This statement in and of itself acknowledges that an concensus of definition must be met before God can be proven, or a set of factual conditions. That would allow for the future condition of God being proved to occur, however I see you didn't quote me there.


I think you love to nitpick. If you knew I conceded it the first time around, what does it do to point it out again if I had once said I had incorrectly portrayed my sentiments?

There are three types of claims:factual,value, and policy. Policy isn't important for discussion's sake.

A factual claim affirms that certain conditions exist in the material world and could be observed

An example of a factual claim would be:
a) The U.S. is comprised of 48 contiguous states
b) New Mexico became a state in 1912.

These claims can be verified by reference with some sort of data.

A value claim asserts the quality of a person,place,thing, or idea

Two examples would be:
a) Natural gas is our best energy source
b)Drugs and alcohol are a threat to public morality

These statements make value judgments that cannot be checked against data. The conditions can only be defined by the participants in argumentation. It has no generally accepted means of verification. In my examples, natural gas may show to have less pollutants, cost less BTU than other energy sources, and have other characteristics that may make it seem as a factual claim, however the word "best" means more than verifiable characteristics. Some people find gas better than electric for cooking.How is that verified? So value claims, may vary from personal choice to definition in the strictest verifiable terms. The way one can tell a factual claim from a value claim is that value claims usually are phrased with an appeal to personal subjectivity (morality/immorality;best/worst;right/wrong;just/unjust..etc.) These cannot be objectively verified because they depend on the parties' concept of what is and is not of value to them.

So when you tell me that:

"A god is a supernatural creature that has created the universe or is capable of being worshipped.
AND
A creature is supernatural if it exists outside of the observable universe."

I automatically know that the proverbial proof will do nothing to create general acceptance.

When speaking in matters of God, or proving God(s), to date there is no factual data to verify his/her/its existence, so as I've stated many times issues of God are not matters of fact, or rephrased factual claims. God, however will be a value claim.

When I asked you the criteria for God, your definition could suffice for many people, some it may not. Some may say you're wholly wrong. Some may say your definition is incomplete. The point I'm getting across is that when compared to a factual claim, value claims are subjective in nature, thus it's provability is not possible. Influence or persuasion is possible, as with the natural gas example, however that requires that your values and definitions are aligned. We know the God concept varies from person to person by their own different definitions. God cannot be objectively verified because they depend on the parties' concept of what is and is not of value to them.

Soul Invictus

Goliath is the one with the insults...I think he's winning that game 2-0, with 1 score against me and CJD apiece. I on the other hand like sarcasm. Does that count?