7thangel

Facts Without Evidences

The battlecry of atheists in opposing theists is “show us evidences.” Unfortunately, some of the facts, in the absence of evidences, do actually exist. Because these facts are actually outside of the realm of logic. So, whatever evidences we give are actually independent to the thing we are proving to believe it exists. But we know that it exists. Free Will, the laws of physics, power, life, Spirit, the intellect, are the examples of them.

One of the dilemmas I have is saying that the Deep Blue computer has no intellect. Upon further examination, and application of logic, the idea of intellect is present on it. But how would I really know that such a computer have no intellect? Well, I would say, I just know.

But here is another one:

I know space occupies nothing, and therefore nothing exists. For if nothing does not exists; then there is no space. So how would we define Existence? What is nothing?

Clutch

Please restate your post in the form of an intelligible argument. Many thanks.

Mageth

Unfortunately, some of the facts, in the absence of evidences, do actually exist. Because these facts are actually outside of the realm of logic.

I'm interested in hearing one "fact" that could be established to actually exist in the absense of evidence, and that is "outside the realm of logic." You didn't present any.

Free Will - I've heard evidence in support of free will, and, if it exists, is not outside the realm of logic.
The laws of physics - I'd say there's lots of evidence for these, and they are definitely not outside the realm of logic.
Power - Needs a bit more definition to make a judgment call on.
Life - again, lots of evidence, and not outside the realm of logic
Spirit - again, a definition is needed. But as to how I commonly understand "spirit", there's no convincing evidence. In the lack of convincing evidence, I'd say spirit probably doesn't exist. I'm an aspiritist. But is spirit, if it exists, "outside the realm of logic?" I don't see why it would necessarily be so.
The intellect - again, there's evidence, and I'd say it's not outside the realm of logic.

7thangel

Giving your demand would unjustify my post. However, please focus on the last paragraph with the two questions.

Shadowy Man

Hmmm... not only do I not have an intellect, I'm out of a job too!!

7thangel

Maget said:

Free Will - I've heard evidence in support of free will, and, if it exists, is not outside the realm of logic.

You have heard evidence about free will, and yet said "IF it exists," expressing unconviction. If what you heard is evidence, then you shoud be convinced that it exists. My point is that the evidence you are actually saying is maybe outside of logic. I guess my example about the existence of nothing is really a good one.

I guess I understand when Clutch says that my post is unintelligible. But I woudl just say, I know what I am saying, and sure of it.

7thangel

If you could understand, why Mageth said "if it exists" despite hearing evidences. You may have understood me why I mentioned power, intellect and the laws of physics as examples.

If you could really understand clearly the last paragraph with the two questions on my first post, then you'll know I make sense. Why don't you answer them?

Clutch

Ah. My mistake, then. Sorry.

InFlames

All of these examples have evidence to support them, like Mageth said. Some more than others. What do you mean by power though- energy?

Well, if that computer is able to "learn" then one can conclude that it has some sort of artificial intellect (probably primitive).

And like Clutch said, you need to restate this and explain your questions a little better. If you can't give a better explanation, I'm gonna have to assume that you are just thowing arguments around and have no idea what you are even saying. What do you mean by space- are you talking about the universe or simply an empty vacuum?

Shadowy Man

Well, if you think that the laws of physics have no evidence to support them, then I think you should get your hands off your keyboard.