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.
How is debating your illogical position "trolling"?
Y'all claim over, and over, and over, and over, again...that your Atheism is simply a disbelief in God(s), based upon a lack of evidence. This is claiming YOU DON'T HAVE A PERCEPTION relative to God(s).
I have explained that I DO HAVE A PERCEPTION relative to God(s). I even explain my perception as, "GOD is ALL THAT EXISTS".
So...how can you now claim that your perception of God should have equal merit to my perception of God, when you, et al, always claim not to have a perception (No evidence) of God?!!
You always say you have no evidence. I say my evidence of "God is All"...is that "ALL" is objectively known to exist...and I perceive "ALL" as God. How can you say our evidence is the same...when you self-admit you have none...while I offer mine?
AGAIN: You must offer a logical argument.
Personally, I perceive that it is far more likely that there is not a God. Therefore, I perceive that you are wrong. I perceive that your definition is simply a made up definition that you use to make your belief fit into the box you want it to. I perceive that you have no more evidence for your belief than anyone else, and are simply saying the exact same thing the fundies do, which is, "I believe it, therefore it is true". Everyone on here except for a few with your similar beliefs, all perceive this to be hogwash.
I perceive plenty of things, including my own perception of a possible god, or lack thereof. You see, some of us do not have a NEED to have a god. I have my own beliefs, which I have mentioned many times on here, and my perception is just as valid as yours. To say it isn't just proves what we all know about you.
You can't (dis)prove a non-falsifiable hypothesis. "God is all" is non-falsifiable
Roll back a bit. What is the hypothesis inherent in "God is all"? A required component of a hypothesis is an explanation that is asserted. What's actually being asserted? What's going on is that people are putting "God is all" as a conclusion without presenting any premises to serve as logical rationale to draw such a conclusion. That's literally illogical.
The problem is that "God is all" is not a hypothesis at all. It is actually a premise, like the premise "heat energy is measured in calories." Someone made up a measurement scale to measure heat energy; they called it "calories"; there's no "reason" in challenging such a premise, because it doesn't "matter" until that premise is used in an argument reaching some substantive conclusion. That's when falsifiability and non-falsifiability comes into play - when it affects something other than the handful of characters on the computer screen within which the words were presented.
How is debating your illogical position "trolling"?
Y'all claim over, and over, and over, and over, again...that your Atheism is simply a disbelief in God(s), based upon a lack of evidence. This is claiming YOU DON'T HAVE A PERCEPTION relative to God(s).
I have explained that I DO HAVE A PERCEPTION relative to God(s). I even explain my perception as, "GOD is ALL THAT EXISTS".
So...how can you now claim that your perception of God should have equal merit to my perception of God, when you, et al, always claim not to have a perception (No evidence) of God?!!
You always say you have no evidence. I say my evidence of "God is All"...is that "ALL" is objectively known to exist...and I perceive "ALL" as God. How can you say our evidence is the same...when you self-admit you have none...while I offer mine?
AGAIN: You must offer a logical argument.
I see you like logic. That's great!
Let me try then.
First thing first.
Quote:
I say my evidence of "God is All"...is that "ALL" is objectively known to exist...and I perceive "ALL" as God.
I can see how you can have a perception (a way of regarding, understanding, or interpreting something; a mental impression) of "ALL" being a God. That's fine.
I just don't see how you can equate your mental impression with evidence.
Perception is perception.
Evidence is evidence.
Perception is A
Evidence is B
A is A. A is not B. A can not be A and B at the same time, or be neither A nor B at the same time.
As someone who admires logic so much, I'm sure, you are not going to insist on breaking foundation of logic just because these pesky logical absolutes are standing in a way of you making an argument.
Same thing with your "GOD is ALL THAT EXISTS" claim.
God is God.
ALL THAT EXISTS is ALL THAT EXISTS.
It is not the same thing.
God is A and
ALL THAT EXISTS is B.
For example. I can not just simply claim that
Our Universe is ALL THAT EXISTS.
or
Nature is ALL THAT EXISTS.
I have to prove these claims.
What if there are other Universes in addition to ours?
That would make our Universe only a part of ALL THAT EXISTS and certainly not the same thing as ALL THAT EXISTS.
So our Universe is A and
ALL THAT EXISTS is B.
At least until I prove that there nothing in existence BUT our Universe.
Same with Nature is ALL THAT EXISTS.
What if there is something supernatural out there?
That would make Nature only a part of ALL THAT EXISTS and certainly not the same thing as ALL THAT EXISTS.
So Nature is A and
ALL THAT EXISTS is B.
At least until I prove that there nothing in existence BUT Nature.
Now, as a person who admires logic, you can not not to see the problem we have with your passionate "GOD is ALL THAT EXISTS".
ALL THAT EXISTS is ALL THAT EXISTS.
Define your God the same way as Universe or Nature are defined and then prove that whatever that definition is stands for is ACTUALLY ALL THAT EXISTS.
Until then, you can have all mental impressions you want about whatever you want.
You just can not expect reasonable people to take your mental impressions seriously.
Reasonable people will simply disregard and ignore your mental impressions as fables of your inflamed imagination. And they will be absolutely correct in doing so.
layout what we do have. that is the starting point. Then assign proper weights. Like the weight of rock record vs weight of a book. or if we like, compare one book to another. If logical solutions are not working then we look at emotional needs of humans and place ourselves on the right spot and then see if the "spot" filters the logic.
Roll back a bit. What is the hypothesis inherent in "God is all"? A required component of a hypothesis is an explanation that is asserted. What's actually being asserted? What's going on is that people are putting "God is all" as a conclusion without presenting any premises to serve as logical rationale to draw such a conclusion. That's literally illogical.
The problem is that "God is all" is not a hypothesis at all. It is actually a premise, like the premise "heat energy is measured in calories." Someone made up a measurement scale to measure heat energy; they called it "calories"; there's no "reason" in challenging such a premise, because it doesn't "matter" until that premise is used in an argument reaching some substantive conclusion. That's when falsifiability and non-falsifiability comes into play - when it affects something other than the handful of characters on the computer screen within which the words were presented.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hutennis
I see you like logic. That's great!
Let me try then.
First thing first.
I can see how you can have a perception (a way of regarding, understanding, or interpreting something; a mental impression) of "ALL" being a God. That's fine.
I just don't see how you can equate your mental impression with evidence.
Perception is perception.
Evidence is evidence.
Perception is A
Evidence is B
A is A. A is not B. A can not be A and B at the same time, or be neither A nor B at the same time.
As someone who admires logic so much, I'm sure, you are not going to insist on breaking foundation of logic just because these pesky logical absolutes are standing in a way of you making an argument.
Same thing with your "GOD is ALL THAT EXISTS" claim.
God is God.
ALL THAT EXISTS is ALL THAT EXISTS.
It is not the same thing.
God is A and
ALL THAT EXISTS is B.
For example. I can not just simply claim that
Our Universe is ALL THAT EXISTS.
or
Nature is ALL THAT EXISTS.
I have to prove these claims.
What if there are other Universes in addition to ours?
That would make our Universe only a part of ALL THAT EXISTS and certainly not the same thing as ALL THAT EXISTS.
So our Universe is A and
ALL THAT EXISTS is B.
At least until I prove that there nothing in existence BUT our Universe.
Same with Nature is ALL THAT EXISTS.
What if there is something supernatural out there?
That would make Nature only a part of ALL THAT EXISTS and certainly not the same thing as ALL THAT EXISTS.
So Nature is A and
ALL THAT EXISTS is B.
At least until I prove that there nothing in existence BUT Nature.
Now, as a person who admires logic, you can not not to see the problem we have with your passionate "GOD is ALL THAT EXISTS".
ALL THAT EXISTS is ALL THAT EXISTS.
Define your God the same way as Universe or Nature are defined and then prove that whatever that definition is stands for is ACTUALLY ALL THAT EXISTS.
Until then, you can have all mental impressions you want about whatever you want.
You just can not expect reasonable people to take your mental impressions seriously.
Reasonable people will simply disregard and ignore your mental impressions as fables of your inflamed imagination. And they will be absolutely correct in doing so.
Logical enough for you?
God is defined (by the top experts at providing the definition and meaning of words) as, among other sundry meanings..."The Ultimate Reality" and "Something of Supreme Value".
Unflawed Premise: "All The Energy/Matter That Exists And Has Existed" has been proved to objectively exist.
(If anything at all exists, this is objectively valid.)
Unflawed Premise: I perceive "All The Matter/Energy That Exists And Has Existed" to be The Ultimate Reality and Something of Supreme Value.
(I objectively do have that perception.)
True Deductions: "All The Matter /Energy That Exists And Has Existed" is definitively "God"...as per my perception. Thus, God = "All The Matter/Energy That Exists And Has Existed" . And, furthermore...given that "All The Matter/Energy That Exists And Has Existed" had been proved to objectively exist...God objectively exists.
Those that can't get past their hangups and headtrips about God being anything but a Religious Deity notwithstanding.
God is defined (by the top experts at providing the definition and meaning of words) as, among other sundry meanings..."The Ultimate Reality" and "Something of Supreme Value".
Said who? Link please.
Quote:
Unflawed Premise: I perceive...
I'm sorry, but what "I perceive..." has to do with "Unflawed Premise"
Quote:
(I objectively do have that perception.)
To be exact you have that subjective perception.
I hope you are not too serious about quality of this syllogism of yours.
Personally, I perceive that it is far more likely that there is not a God. Therefore, I perceive that you are wrong. I perceive that your definition is simply a made up definition that you use to make your belief fit into the box you want it to. I perceive that you have no more evidence for your belief than anyone else, and are simply saying the exact same thing the fundies do, which is, "I believe it, therefore it is true". Everyone on here except for a few with your similar beliefs, all perceive this to be hogwash.
I perceive plenty of things, including my own perception of a possible god, or lack thereof. You see, some of us do not have a NEED to have a god. I have my own beliefs, which I have mentioned many times on here, and my perception is just as valid as yours. To say it isn't just proves what we all know about you.
GOD does not then manifest through your perception.
GOD does then manifest through my perception.
What I perceive through the perceptive ability I possess that you obviously lack...is not nullified by your lack of ability to perceive it yourself.
Just as, my ability to perceive things through my sense of sight, is not rendered null and void by someone else that is blind and doesn't possess the ability to perceive things through sight like I can.
In that analogy: I am the person that can see and perceive things through my visual abilities...and you are the blind person that can't.
You being blind does not change my ability to see. Even if you thought it did...on the basis that you had never seen anything.
Just as, most can see and few are blind...Most, and that would be MOST, that have ever lived can perceive God...few can't. Unfortunately, you are one of those few.
Just look up Merriam-Webster ( top expert at providing the full and complete definition and meaning of words).
Check out the full definition of G-O-D. You'll see.
When you are hip to that...get back to me. We will debate it further. Not that there is anything to debate in that regard, as you will find out.
You perceive things through your sense of sight. Are those perceptions always subjective, or can they also be objective?
Well, I guess everything is subjective if one wants to play a Pure Solipsism card. But that's another deal.
True Deductions: "All The Matter /Energy That Exists And Has Existed" is definitively "God"...as per my perception. Thus, God = "All The Matter/Energy That Exists And Has Existed" . And, furthermore...given that "All The Matter/Energy That Exists And Has Existed" had been proved to objectively exist...God objectively exists.
flawed. Based on your preception ... "blank is god". that is a flawed link. "energy bla bla" is objectively proven ... god objectively is proven" is like saying ... Given that a couch in my living room is real then god must be real. Thats why I suggest to use what we do have.
flawed. Based on your preception ... "blank is god". that is a flawed link. "energy bla bla" is objectively proven ... god objectively is proven" is like saying ... Given that a couch in my living room is real then god must be real. Thats why I suggest to use what we do have.
Your couch IS God...so are you AA.
Everything is God...so that would figure. And, yes, all the "gross", "nasty", and "evil" things you can think of...that's God too.
EVERYTHING necessarily includes everything.
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.
