WJ

Thanks Dave for your candor. A JTB is a justified true belief. And a syllogism is a form of formal logic from the 'general to the particular'-deduction. As opposed to induction that say the physical sciences use to empirically test ideas. And in the context we're speaking, inductive reasoning is relative to 'the particular to the general'.

Two examples: 'the sun will rise tomorrow', is a form inductive reasoning. It may or may not rise. Likewise, a Christian might claim he/she personally experienced the feeling [concept of] God in their life. That would be another form of induction. The key piece here, in our context, is the problems [of verifying truth] when one 'talks about it' or the feeling or experience itself.

That leads us to what you just said. "Then the god who did it would have to talk to me personally, in a way I could not mistake for a dream, and explain to me who he is and what the miracle he just did was. He would have to answer my questions about his godhood."

Now, you could not claim that God exists after that hypothetical experience could you? Well, you could, but who would be believe it? And, how does one verify it?

Just like the analogy I made with physics/water. The glass I give you could have been hotter or colder at some previous point in time, but how would we verify its properties of change? The physical world is always in a state of flux. This is another reason I ask questions about expectation levels.

I think you get my drift now...there are several issues but all relative to the concept of verification viz. logic. (That's another reason the ontological argument doesn't really 'prove' anything genuinely new; you have to already commit to [or want to]'believing' for it to have a meaning. Another thread of course...)

Walrus

Philosoft

What is your obsession with subjective truth? No one will attempt a logical proof of the non-existence of a supernatural creator until you give some logical attributes of the alleged creator. It is dishonest (and quite annoying) of you to sit here and self-gratifyingly gloat that we can't prove a god's non-existence when you haven't even given any attributes of the god we are supposed to disprove.

WJ

JJ!

Well we say potatoe, you say potato. I'm sorry but an agnostic might not agree with you, but hey, I'm not an agnostic.

to that end, perhaps a bit existential psychology might be appropriate at this time:

"What you are not you cannot percieve to understand. It cannot communicate itself to you."

You have to wonder whether there is any truth to that statement. And how does one experience someone else's truth? Not entirely possible.

On the philosphical side, I think I am finding agreement here that perhaps all truth is, in its essence, Subjectivity. In this sense, one physically enters the world alone; one leaves it alone. However, that only speaks to physical existence and not really essence. I wonder if Jesus would have agreed with Keirkegaard?

Walrus

Koyaanisqatsi

And, once again, the stalemate attempt is revealed:
Inductive reasoning is, inherently, worthless in this regard, which is why the atheist (and agnostic) requests deductive reasoning and why you're forcing this invalid straw man.

If someone comes in here and says, "I felt God and that's all the proof I need," then fine, take a hike, eat some wood chips and smile at the passing clouds like an idiot all day.

But cult members don't do that. They declare, "God factually exists."

We then ask for the evidence they use to base this declarative upon.

Their response is either a fallacy ("what is your evidence he doesn't exist?") or worthless ("I just know it because I felt it").

That is utterly worthless since I can just as easily state, "I know God doesn't exist, because I felt Vishnu and he told me that he was the one true God and Yahweh was a lie."

The only thing that anyone can do with such worthless information is say, "Well, thanks and don't let the URL hit you in your ass on your way out."

A positive claim requires some form of compelling, verifiable evidence and personal revelation is neither compelling nor verifiable evidence so to continue to try and force this invalid stalemate is pointless.

You are doing nothing more than forcing a tautological stalemate that is not applicable.

Please stop that.

And, by the way, the "sun will rise" is an example a verifiable claim based on compelling evidence.

"I felt God," is not.

And, on a more personal note, I'm exceedingly glad you admit truth is subjective, because that only further disproves the existence of the creature depicted in the Bible.

(edited for addendum - Koy)

[ April 23, 2002: Message edited by: Koyaanisqatsi ]</p>

WJ

Koy!

Again you say potatoe, I say potatoe.

You still haven't proved that Atheism, your belief sytem, is absolute truth.

I'm still waiting.

You also may want to tell the physicist that the sun will rise tommorrow is an absolute truth!

Yikes.

Walrus

[ April 23, 2002: Message edited by: WJ ]</p>

Koyaanisqatsi

Nor do I have to.

Have fun with that.

And you may want to stop building these childish straw men. "Absolute" truth? Why would I need to establish anything at all as an "absolute" truth?

What's wrong with you?

I've already agreed with your point that truth is subjective, thereby further proving no such creatures as Gods exist, so what is this crap about proving "absolute" truth?

Just keep dancing, WJ, it's apparently all you're capable of doing.

[ April 23, 2002: Message edited by: Koyaanisqatsi ]</p>

WJ

Koy!

If you honestly believe in what you write, then the nonexistence of God=nothingness. To profess a belief in nothing is an oxymoron.

Therefore, I expect you will not enter into a debate about God ever again. Not!

I still think you are an agnostic wannabe. But then again, truth is Subjectivity!

Walrus
--------
Irrational Man

Rational Ag

Personally, I don't "believe in" the nonexistence of God. I disbelieve in people's concept of God based on a lack of evidence.

I disbelieve in the Christian idea of god, the Islamic idea of god, and every other god concept I have been introduced to. Just as I disbelieve in the existence of Zeus as the Greek mythology describes him, I disbelieve in Jebus as the bible describes him.

This is a concept you seem to have a hard time with Walrus. You seem like an educated person, I would expect you would have gotten it by now.

Answer me a few questions:

Do you believe in the existence of the Invisible Pink Unicorn (IPU)?
We know much about the attributes of the IPU. The information can be found here: <a href="http://www.geocities.com/ipuprophecy/ipu.html" target="_blank">Ministry of the One True Savior</a>

If no, why not? How can you argue and talk about something that you don’t think exists?

How is our discussion about the existence of the IPU any different than our discussion about God? We are discussing concepts fabricated by “inspired” people. When we talk about God, we are discussing the God concept proposed in the Christian bible (generally). When we talk about the IPU, we are discussing the concepts given to us by the IPU prophets.

Either way, we don’t have to “believe in” the nonexistence of nothing to discuss concepts.

-Rational Ag

jj

Well, let's look at your deceptive games here. 1) You start by saying "we" vs. "you", that last you appearing singular but allowing you the weasel room of claiming it's plural now that I catch you using the imperial "we".

2) You don't get to define "atheism", so stop trying.

3) "existenial psychology"??? You want to tell me how jung that fraud is?

4) You still can't distinguish between "truth" and "human knowledge". Human knowledge is obviously subjective until the bitter end. That does not deny the (possible, probable) existance of a real truth underlying human perception. Given the shared experiences of many humans, there is reason to assume an underlying truth of some sort, one that is not subjective, even though experienced via subjective means. Experimental psychologists, now that the subject has sorta come up, do things like that all the time, and sometimes the result is even scientific. Take for example Fletcher's results for auditory loudness and masking. These are measurements of a subjective internal reality of human subjects that are measured and confirmed as constant via objective measurement systems that use probabilistic inputs as their source.

Finally your question about jesus agreeing with Keirkegaard assumes the existance of "jesus". I'm still waiting for that proof. If there isn't any, we can't agree that "jesus" would agree with anyone, eh?

So, once more, atheists don't believe in gods. Agnostics don't CARE.

You, for reasons known only to yourself, avail yourself of a variety of obviously deceptive rhetorical manouvers in an attempt to outpoint your debating opponents through deception. Can you explain to me how this deceptive activity jibes with any religion you may or may not have?

WJ

Rational!

"This is a concept you seem to have a hard time with Walrus. You seem like an educated person, I would expect you would have gotten it by now."

How do you *know* I am an educated person? Your answer to this will prove a point.

Then you said:

"If no, why not? How can you argue and talk about something that you don’t think exists?"

You can wonder about it, just like you can wonder whether the glass of water was boiling an hour before I gave it to you. But all one can do is wonder, not physically verify. But in your case, you've chosen to take a position on it. You believe in some-thing as a JTB?

Otherwise, we/you are talking about no-thing. And if we are, then what's the point for the Atheist?

Wonderment? concern? caring? why?

Seems like more of an 'agnostic' would think in thoses terms.

Get it yet?

Walrus