Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Once you are fully immersed in the "comfort zone" of believing in God, for many it's not only a comfortable place to stay but a scary proposition to even question, so mentally you just don't go there...
Once you are fully immersed in the "comfort zone" of believing in God, for many it's not only a comfortable place to stay but a scary proposition to even question, so mentally you just don't go there...
Quote:
Originally Posted by phetaroi
mentally being the key word there
Mentally is the only way we can go (be cognitively aware) anywhere. Taking that aspect of our Being for granted is the typical sourceof confusion, IMO.
Mentally is the only way we can go (be cognitively aware) anywhere. Taking that aspect of our Being for granted is the typical sourceof confusion, IMO.
I have asked for extra evidence, because Mystic is making an extra claim. Both atheists and Mystic admit something exists, but Mystic's extra claim is that existence is also a god. Therefore he needs to provide extra evidence for that extra claim. So far, his arguments have been both silly and they also apply to existence as not a god.
There is a classic statement. I heard in on a TV show again recently. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." It's true.
Ordinary claim: We had some rain in the west.
Evidence: There is a rainbow in the west.
Extraordinary claim: The Leprechaun has a pot of gold.
Evidence: There is a rainbow in the west.
The case never gets to the jury.
The defense lawyer asked the judge for a summary judgment because the claimant has produced no evidence to support his claim.
Judge: Defense request for a summary judgment is granted. Case Dismissed.
This is exactly the same as Mystic's claim that the rocks and the wind are God. That is an extraordinary claim for which no evidence (let alone extraordinary evidence) is presented.
It's also not a case of both claims being equal. We can feel the wind. We can see the rocks and feel their weight. This is ridiculously simple. That evidence is empirical. We can all examine the evidence ourselves. It doesn't require a PhD, scientific training, or a high IQ to understand it. I don't think anybody participating in this forum is lacking in intellect or insufficiently trained in basic high school subjects to understand this either.
You are also claiming existence is conscious (or trying to sneak this idea in without evidence). If it is not conscious, why call it a god? That would make the term 'god' meaningless.
Claiming existence is conscious is an extraordinary claim. I haven't seen any evidence for such, and certainly no extraordinary evidence.
Claiming existence is conscious is an extraordinary claim. I haven't seen any evidence for such, and certainly no extraordinary evidence.
Reminds me of the very interesting book I just finished, that essentially examines whether mathematics exists regardless of man or whether man invented mathematics. Put another way, did man discover or invent mathematics? I wonder how a judge and jury would do with that one...
There is a classic statement. I heard in on a TV show again recently. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." It's true.
Ordinary claim: We had some rain in the west.
Evidence: There is a rainbow in the west.
Extraordinary claim: The Leprechaun has a pot of gold.
Evidence: There is a rainbow in the west.
The case never gets to the jury.
The defense lawyer asked the judge for a summary judgment because the claimant has produced no evidence to support his claim.
Judge: Defense request for a summary judgment is granted. Case Dismissed.
This is exactly the same as Mystic's claim that the rocks and the wind are God. That is an extraordinary claim for which no evidence (let alone extraordinary evidence) is presented.
It's also not a case of both claims being equal. We can feel the wind. We can see the rocks and feel their weight. This is ridiculously simple. That evidence is empirical. We can all examine the evidence ourselves. It doesn't require a PhD, scientific training, or a high IQ to understand it. I don't think anybody participating in this forum is lacking in intellect or insufficiently trained in basic high school subjects to understand this either.
As typically employed by atheists and debunkers of anomalous phenomena, the "extraordinary claims" assertion is fallacious, akin to the fallacious "burden of proof" assertion that atheists and debunkers also love. [url]https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/the-extraordinary-evidence-fallacy[/url].
I happen to believe on the basis of my extensive work that "There is no deity" is quite an extraordinary claim, certainly no less extraordinary than "There is a deity" - but so what? Any claim of any sort stands or falls on its own merits. Except in the minds of atheists and debunkers, there is no special category of "extraordinary claims" requiring some special quantum of evidence. All metaphysical claims about ultimate ontological reality, including "There is no deity," are special in that they cannot be proved to any level of objective certainty.
In point of fact, panpsychism - the notion that consciousness is part of the fabric of reality at the atomic or quantum level - is a philosophical position dating back to ancient times that has received increasing attention in recent years. Indeed, it has received increasing attention because (1) the so-called hard problem of consciousness has defied explanation in neurological terms; (2) aspects of consciousness (e.g., nonlocality) are extremely difficult to explain in materialistic terms; and (3) panpsychism arguably would preserve at least some species of materialism although it would also mesh nicely with a religious perspective.
As typically employed by atheists and debunkers of anomalous phenomena, the "extraordinary claims" assertion is fallacious, akin to the fallacious "burden of proof" assertion that atheists and debunkers also love. https://www.catholic.com/magazine/pr...idence-fallacy.
And again you just dismiss something without providing a logical argument why your assertion is true. The evidence your are again wrong is that people use this method all the time. I have a yacht in Nice; I have a dragon in my kitchen; I levitate 20 minutes every morning (with my dragon in Nice), usw.
See, examples (AKA evidence) proving you (and your link) wrong. See how that works? Something substantive for you to think about.
You just do not like the argument (based on probability) when used with religious arguments because it means you need to provide extraordinary evidence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by O'Darby
I happen to believe on the basis of my extensive work that "There is no deity" is quite an extraordinary claim, certainly no less extraordinary than "There is a deity" - but so what? Any claim of any sort stands or falls on its own merits.
But we do know natural forces exist, and they do create complexity without the need of an intelligent agent. Until now, we have met the burden of proof, 100%.
Quote:
Originally Posted by O'Darby
Except in the minds of atheists and debunkers, there is no special category of "extraordinary claims" requiring some special quantum of evidence. All metaphysical claims about ultimate ontological reality, including "There is no deity," are special in that they cannot be proved to any level of objective certainty.
So Saint Peter resurrecting a cooked fish is for you not extraordinary? Mmmmhhh, that explains so much about your posts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by O'Darby
In point of fact, panpsychism - the notion that consciousness is part of the fabric of reality at the atomic or quantum level - is a philosophical position dating back to ancient times that has received increasing attention in recent years. Indeed, it has received increasing attention because (1) the so-called hard problem of consciousness has defied explanation in neurological terms;
Also a problem for you. Your philosophical arguments also can not explain the hard problem of consciousness.
Which still leaves the rest of the large amount of evidence that consciousness is neurological. The usual cry of "hard problem of consciousness" does not remove that evidence you do not like.
why do theists love to raise problems while ignoring their beliefs also suffer from the same problems?
Quote:
Originally Posted by O'Darby
(2) aspects of consciousness (e.g., nonlocality) are extremely difficult to explain in materialistic terms;
If it existed, you would have a point. As you have (as usual) provided no evidence for nonlocality, we must go with the evidence we do have.
Quote:
Originally Posted by O'Darby
and (3) panpsychism arguably would preserve at least some species of materialism although it would also mesh nicely with a religious perspective.
True, but then it is also true for Christianity, Hinduism, usw. That something could be true does not mean it is.
The bolded is, from my perspective, the key to so many problems of religionists.
I've never understood it.
I'm from small town Tennessee, but even as a kid, I knew I didn't fit in with the prevailing mindset here. That only worsened over time as I got older.
Twenty, maybe even ten, years ago, I could have a conversation with a lot of religious people, and had a lot of friends who were religious. While fewer people are religious today than twenty years ago, those who remain religious tend to be a lot more extreme in their faith. It's simply hard for me to get along with them now.
There's a big self-sort in this country where conservative/religious people are consolidating in certain areas. Tennessee is a big draw for religious/conservative people from other states. If anything, this area is probably getting more religious, not less, over time. I'm politically moderate, but agnostic, and it's becoming increasingly untenable living here.
I've had a lot of conversations with people from different walks of life over the years. I've worked in tech, and worked with people from a large variety of backgrounds. I've lived in different areas of the country - at one point, I lived or worked in six different states in six years. I've been exposed to a good bit more variety than the typical local.
The guy that I mentioned has never lived more than a half hour from where we group up. He got married and started having kids fairly young. He's never even tried to broaden his worldview.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
