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.
Is your conclusion NOT something you BELIEVE? If it is NOT your BELIEF, what is it???? If you are believing it because of a lack of evidence, then you have a BELIEF NOT based on evidence. Does your rational mind follow this?
Lack of evidence for X IS evidence that X does not exist. It is not always good evidence except where we expect that evidence should exist.
Lack of evidence for X IS evidence that X does not exist. It is not always good evidence except where we expect that evidence should exist.
The illogic of their using a Lack of Evidence/No Evidence, as Evidence...has always been lost on most Atheists.
YOU not having evidence...does not then objectively prove that there isn't any. Especially so, when the reason you do not have it, is because you refused/denied it when it was offered.
I pretty much ignore you, Harry, but I will respond to a couple of your points because they are useful teaching opportunities.
The eagle never lost so much time as when he submitted to learn from the crow. - William Blake.
But let the education begin, and thank you for giving me the opportunity, hopefully you will learn something from someone who can support his position.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irkle Berserkle
There is no "God of the gaps" fallacy. I really wish you knee-jerk posters would put away your Handy List of Logical Fallacies, because you misuse it far more often than you employ it correctly.
'Knee-jerk' is the poison well fallacy. Your straw man is also a fallacy.
While "God of the gaps" is not a formal fallacy, it is an method used by people who attack naturalism thinking this supports their
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irkle Berserkle
Discussion and debate over the so-called "hard problem of consciousness" has raged for decades and is no closer to a solution than it was when it commenced.
Sigh. We do not even know if the hard problem is an actual problem or just our ignorance of the precise details of how our brains produce consciousness.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irkle Berserkle
As I've mentioned previously, a scientific mind of the caliber of Bernardo Kastrup argues in The Idea of the World, a series of peer-reviewed papers over a wide spectrum of scientific disciplines, that not only is naturalism false but that idealism - consciousness as the fundamental stuff of reality - is far more consistent with the scientific data.
Cherry picked argument from authority. There are many scientific papers pointing to our brain being the source of consciousness. We also have the evidence from octopuses that consciousness is associated with neurons; evidence from synesthesia; and we can model aspects of consciousness with AI. <-- This is what evidence looks like. Learn, Irkle, learn. I even earn money using AI because I have studied this. All this is evidence that consciousness is based on neurons, and not some cosmic quantity that has no mechanism to explain how this would work.
I thought you had studied this?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irkle Berserkle
And Kastrup scarcely alone. Scientists such as Roger Penrose have been making similar arguments for decades. But he's just a mathematical physicist, mathematician, philosopher of science and Nobel Laureate in Physics - what does he know? He's self-evidently insane, I'm pretty sure the NJ real estate guy will tell us.
A straw man, no one is saying Penrose is insane. Actual neuroscientists have pointed out the flaws with Penrose's theory. And this is the problem with your argument from authority, intelligent people may have ideas, but that does not mean those ideas are valid. Only the evidence for those ideas are valid, something you avoid because you probably do not have that evidence, just a list of names.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irkle Berserkle
I simply say that much of the evidence and argument from the debate over the hard problem of consciousness is consistent with the view that consciousness is not an epiphenon of the brain and is not easily explained by naturalism. When this is placed in context with other evidence, it tends to support the survival of consciousness. It adds a piece to the puzzle.
So you keep asserting. Whereas I have octopuses, synesthesia and back propagation networks.
It would appear you education has not been a good one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irkle Berserkle
Here, the irrepressible Harry is referring to my statement about evidence from consciousness studies, Near-Death experience research, psychical research, Intelligent Design and whatnot. Despite the vast body of published work, Harry blithely declares there is "no evidence" - because he doesn't have the faintest idea of what he's talking about.
Another assertion. Anytime you wish to discuss neuro-science, I will educate you in the science section. My research into NDEs is limited, but again the evidence I have seen is that the accounts are not genuine. Creationism is naturally out because there is no evidence for creationism, just the usual lies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irkle Berserkle
I've been immersed in this stuff for decades. I've been a member of the (British) Society for Psychical Research, the American Society for Psychical Research, the International Association for Near-Death Studies and other organizations that publish peer-reviewed journals and count many scientists and academics among their membership. I've read literally hundreds of books, journals and other publications in these fields. Of equal significance, I have had perhaps 25 experiences of my own that mesh precisely with what others have reported and documented.
And I am a genius with an IQ of 2000. See, anyone can make claims. What you need to do is support those claims with evidence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irkle Berserkle
Knee-jerk away, Harry, because you're only serving to underscore my points.
Once again the poison well fallacy, underscoring my point. You have nothing.
Just like Galileo had to PROVE the universe DOES NOT revolve around the Earth, since that concept was in opposition to the "long established standard" that it did...the Atheists will have to PROVE God DOES NOT exist, if they want their concept to be accepted as valid.
No. All we have to do is provide evidence that is better than your attempts at evidence. And we have done this so often one must ask why you are still on the playing field while we are in the hotel rooms drinking champagne.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GldnRule
BTW...good luck with that. It will be much harder for the Atheists than it was for Galileo...since he was right, and they are wrong (about God not existing).
Assertions are not evidence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GldnRule
The "God Exists" concept has "taken on all challengers" for thousands of years and "dusted them" like they weren't even there!!
its kind of fun watching MP splutter and fume and spin. with circular repetition saying the same things over and over, going round and round in the same circle like a dog chasing its own tail.
like one of those fireworks that doesn't ever actually launch but spins around on the asphalt emitting sparks.
but not going anywhere.
The illogic of their using a Lack of Evidence/No Evidence, as Evidence...has always been lost on most Atheists.
YOU not having evidence...does not then objectively prove that there isn't any. Especially so, when the reason you do not have it, is because you refused/denied it when it was offered.
Exactly.
It's like someone who never learned to read, then saying that reading does not exist. And if they can't read then nobody can read. And if it is pointed out to them look, 93% of the world is reading, they say oh they are lying and delusional.
They do not see how irrational that is, how lacking in logic.
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 12-30-2020 at 05:07 AM..
The illogic of their using a Lack of Evidence/No Evidence, as Evidence...has always been lost on most Atheists.
YOU not having evidence...does not then objectively prove that there isn't any. Especially so, when the reason you do not have it, is because you refused/denied it when it was offered.
yes, most atheist believe in something more (undefined because there are so many beliefs) because it is just common sense. the militants call them "irreligious" because they they think they are not "real atheist". much like fundy think theist think other beliefs about god "Aren't real believers". they are basically not rational people.
the site is primarily activism and recovery.
The recovery guys arent really an issue. Just the nature of the post can tell you if it is recovery, ptsd or fundy thinks. So called ex-fundy's aren't really ex. they are the same type of person that just their belief. since they have a black/white world view they are totally locked into a belief. its all in or all out ... only. It takes a huge amount of evidence to dislodge the belief.
When the belief is dislodged it a dramatic and violent shift from "totally yes god" to "totally no god". To you really literal people I don't mean physical fighting people violent. The shift from all belief to all no belief is literally is like a rock slip and massive earth quake.
Where non fundy think types think about things things as "that's plausible" or "Yeah, I see that I just don't think so." so the shift into non belief is easier.
You talk about, "The Burden of Proof".
That obligation is upon the one making the "extraordinary", "remarkable", or "new" claim.
Well..."God Exists" (and the Soul/Spirit) has been sooooooo prolific, for sooooooo long...it is considered a "Standard of Human Understanding".
When a concept reaches a "saturation point" that is to such a degree that it is considered to be "The Standard"...a position that deviates from that would be the "extraordinary/remarkable/new claim" that will have to prove itself against the long established standard.
Belief in God has been the "norm" (8to9 out of 10) for THOOOOOOOUSANDS of years. It's the "incumbent position"...the "ruling viewpoint"...the "champion concept"!
That concept does not have to prove itself...it currently "holds office"! It's upon the challenger (Atheism) to prove itself.
So far it's gotten steamrolled and flattened, in every "race". If it were seen as an "election"...Atheism would be viewed as being defeated in the biggest landslide EVER.
But we have the Challenger with a 1W-9L record "calling out" the REEEEEEEIGNING, AND DEFENNNNNNDING, UNNNNNN-DE-FEATED, CHAAAAAAAM-PI-OOOOOOON CONNNNNNNCEPT, OOOOOOF THE WORRRRRRRLD...and demand it "prove" itself.
Also, I hold Atheism in higher regard, and view it as superior, to most concepts...and certainly above all organized religious dogma. I'm just pointing out the REALITY as to what "The Way Of The World" is.
Just like Galileo had to PROVE the universe DOES NOT revolve around the Earth, since that concept was in opposition to the "long established standard" that it did...the Atheists will have to PROVE God DOES NOT exist, if they want their concept to be accepted as valid.
BTW...good luck with that. It will be much harder for the Atheists than it was for Galileo...since he was right, and they are wrong (about God not existing).
The "God Exists" concept has "taken on all challengers" for thousands of years and "dusted them" like they weren't even there!!
yup, thats what the science supports.
I don't call it god so I disagree with that part ... but the science definitely supports the belief ... at least large enough for rational people to just say ... ok "plausible" and leave it at that.
irrational have to fight it tooth and nail, every word of it.
We have no evidence that anything is responsible for existence, or even that existence began at all. It could be infinite and have always existed and will always exist. We don't have the answer. We probably never will. So the correct response to the question "how did existence begin" is we don't know how it began, and we don't know if it began at all. Then full stop. No need to spackle and paint the hole in our knowledge in order to make ourselves feel better. Sometimes, "I don't know" is the best answer, and/or the only answer. And we have to be good with "I don't know" until and unless evidence becomes available to provide an answer.
Nobody knows how or if existence began. We have theories, but belief should be measured to the evidence. At this point, even our best guess, the Big Bang, is nothing more than a model that best fits the present data. However, we are infants at this, and we have 1 billionth of the data that we will have in the future. At that point, a new model might make a better fit. For now, we wait, and investigate, with no guarantees that we will ever have a definitive answer.
Everyone on City-Data will die without an answer to this question, as have untold billions of people before us. That's just reality, and we have to accept it.
marc ... that statement shows that you are not thinking.
you believe it might be infinite ... thats fine. And as appoint of fact it may be true. Nobody knows what started it, thats true also. It also has no bearing on the our bubble of spacetime is responsible for your existence.
What you may be struggling with is the word "responsible" as in intent. Maybe address it from that angle.
the universe is quantum computing you. Just a fact my man.
start your denial of what he said from that. People that can't argue their points with all facts and must stay in the argument, well, they are the ones that start reporting, running, or just flat make stuff up.
Last edited by Arach Angle; 12-30-2020 at 06:43 AM..
I'll peruse those links. While I am interested in your experiences and research, I don't really have the time right now to get too deeply involved but maybe once I've followed your links?
My interest in near death experiences stems from my son's death. I had an interesting experience when I met his casket at the airport and I had an interesting dream on the second night after his death. My own 'research' into NDE's and OBE's drew a blank.
I checked 3 links, the first 2 had a donate link. If you find any real science, please let us know.
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.
