Probable, or Not. The 1000 flavors is boring me...
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
04-10-2016, 07:20 AM
RE: Probable, or Not. The 1000 flavors is boring me...
(04-10-2016 06:51 AM)Chas Wrote:  Once again, you over-simplify. There is both evidence for and a lack of evidence against.
There is no evidence of anything other than naturalism.

Naturalism is not true because of a lack of evidence to the contrary, it's true because of strong evidence in support of it. Without the evidence in support of it, we'd lack a belief one way or the other.

I lack a belief in the supernatural as well, mainly because the term has no clear meaning, in a reality in which an atom can be in two places at the same time. In our world, any observable property would be categorized as natural, even if that property astonishes us, or turns over what we thought before.

To say there's no evidence for the supernatural also makes very little sense, since we have no conception of what such evidence would look like, or what is expected to be found. You'd have to have some idea as to what would constitute as supernatural, and what sort of evidence would constitute as indicating it exists, to say no such evidence exists.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-10-2016, 07:21 AM
RE: Probable, or Not. The 1000 flavors is boring me...
(04-10-2016 06:56 AM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote:  
(04-10-2016 06:39 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Not sure what reality or aspect of reality I'm denying here.

But you're likely just repeating one of your daily mantras, rather than expressing anything true.

What definition of true are you using today?

How are you defining reality?

What are most atheists thinking today?

You're the one that accused me of denying reality. So perhaps you should define what reality it is that you suggest I'm denying.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-10-2016, 07:36 AM
RE: Probable, or Not. The 1000 flavors is boring me...
(04-10-2016 07:21 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(04-10-2016 06:56 AM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote:  What definition of true are you using today?

How are you defining reality?

What are most atheists thinking today?

You're the one that accused me of denying reality. So perhaps you should define what reality it is that you suggest I'm denying.

You've been given multiple definitions of a variety of concepts by myself and other posters.

You've rejected them outright or redefined them to suit your own purposes.


So what are most atheists thinking today?

Is the groupthink mood positive or negative?

Have you finished making our next argument yet?

Help for the living. Hope for the dead. ~ R.G. Ingersoll

Freedom offers opportunity. Opportunity confers responsibility. Responsibility to use the freedom we enjoy wisely, honestly and humanely. ~ Noam Chomsky
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-10-2016, 07:48 AM
RE: Probable, or Not. The 1000 flavors is boring me...
(04-10-2016 07:36 AM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote:  You've been given multiple definitions of a variety of concepts by myself and other posters.

You've rejected them outright or redefined them to suit your own purposes.

No, I disagreed with your definitions, and indicated why, and you failed to argue otherwise. Perhaps we disagreed on our use of terms here, provided we understand how the other is using the term, our disagreements are not substantive, and can be ignored.

Not sure how semantic disagreements, amount to denying reality though. So you'd likely have to return to that again, and substantiate it.

Quote:So what are most atheists thinking today?

Don't know.

Quote:Is the groupthink mood positive or negative?

To early to tell. It seems a lil cranky thought.

Quote:Have you finished making our next argument yet?

No, I'm still waiting on you to return to yours.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-10-2016, 01:07 PM
RE: Probable, or Not. The 1000 flavors is boring me...
(04-10-2016 07:20 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(04-10-2016 06:51 AM)Chas Wrote:  Once again, you over-simplify. There is both evidence for and a lack of evidence against.
There is no evidence of anything other than naturalism.

Naturalism is not true because of a lack of evidence to the contrary, it's true because of strong evidence in support of it. Without the evidence in support of it, we'd lack a belief one way or the other.

Do you not understand the words 'both' and 'and'?

Quote:I lack a belief in the supernatural as well, mainly because the term has no clear meaning, in a reality in which an atom can be in two places at the same time. In our world, any observable property would be categorized as natural, even if that property astonishes us, or turns over what we thought before.

The supernatural is basically defined as 'not natural'; not explainable by any natural mechanism.
Every time it is discovered how reality works, the answer has always been natural.

Quote:To say there's no evidence for the supernatural also makes very little sense, since we have no conception of what such evidence would look like, or what is expected to be found. You'd have to have some idea as to what would constitute as supernatural, and what sort of evidence would constitute as indicating it exists, to say no such evidence exists.

See above.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-10-2016, 01:24 PM
RE: Probable, or Not. The 1000 flavors is boring me...
(04-10-2016 01:07 PM)Chas Wrote:  Do you not understand the words 'both' and 'and'?

And do you not understand that without evidence for naturalism, we would lack a belief in it.

Quote:The supernatural is basically defined as 'not natural'; not explainable by any natural mechanism.
Every time it is discovered how reality works, the answer has always been natural.

Do you run the sentence through your head before you type it? Any observable mechanism, discovered or yet to be discovered would be natural. Any observable property discovered or yet to be discovered would be natural. Any observable phenomenon or property, or mechanism by definition would be natural, in our age. What's natural has been all encompassing in this regard. Ages ago the idea of an atom being in two places at the same time, would have been considered spooky stuff, but after observing such a phenomena and it's mechanism, we label it natural.

If one were to ask you to see if you can find a supernatural mechanism at play, you'd have no clue what it is your supposed to be looking for.

Quote:
Quote:To say there's no evidence for the supernatural also makes very little sense, since we have no conception of what such evidence would look like, or what is expected to be found. You'd have to have some idea as to what would constitute as supernatural, and what sort of evidence would constitute as indicating it exists, to say no such evidence exists.

See above.

See above.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-10-2016, 02:10 PM
RE: Probable, or Not. The 1000 flavors is boring me...
(04-10-2016 05:54 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(04-10-2016 01:14 AM)Deesse23 Wrote:  Aaaaand another what...5 pages wasted by Tommys attempts to redefine everything and shift the burden of proof?

That mail order PhD really paid off it seems. Facepalm

Ah okay so the atheists here don't have a burden of proof, because they hold no positive beliefs here? They hold no positive contrary position to a theistic one, just a lack of belief.

ooh ooh I do I do. :raisehand:

There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. -Camus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-10-2016, 04:39 PM
RE: Probable, or Not. The 1000 flavors is boring me...
(04-10-2016 01:24 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(04-10-2016 01:07 PM)Chas Wrote:  Do you not understand the words 'both' and 'and'?

And do you not understand that without evidence for naturalism, we would lack a belief in it.

I said "There is both evidence for and a lack of evidence against." So your objection shows a lack of reading comprehension on your part.

Quote:
Quote:The supernatural is basically defined as 'not natural'; not explainable by any natural mechanism.
Every time it is discovered how reality works, the answer has always been natural.

Do you run the sentence through your head before you type it? Any observable mechanism, discovered or yet to be discovered would be natural. Any observable property discovered or yet to be discovered would be natural. Any observable phenomenon or property, or mechanism by definition would be natural, in our age. What's natural has been all encompassing in this regard. Ages ago the idea of an atom being in two places at the same time, would have been considered spooky stuff, but after observing such a phenomena and it's mechanism, we label it natural.

Sure, yet you believe in god - the very epitome of the supernatural. Consider

Quote:If one were to ask you to see if you can find a supernatural mechanism at play, you'd have no clue what it is your supposed to be looking for.

Precisely. Because the supernatural does not exist. Gods do not exist.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-10-2016, 06:13 PM
RE: Probable, or Not. The 1000 flavors is boring me...
(04-10-2016 04:39 PM)Chas Wrote:  I said "There is both evidence for and a lack of evidence against." So your objection shows a lack of reading comprehension on your part.

And I said that without evidence for naturalism we would lack a belief in it. Do you acknowledge that?

Quote:Precisely. Because the supernatural does not exist. Gods do not exist.

The term supernatural has no real meaning in our age, where an atom can exist in two places at once, and be a called natural process. The term natural has become all encompassing, to include every possible observation, and phenomenon imaginable once observed. Nothing would distinguish a supernatural property of reality, from a newly discovered natural property of reality. The difference between the two wouldn't be substantive, just semantics.

And just because the term supernatural, offers no real distinction here, empty of any real meaning, doesn't mean that God does not exist. In fact it doesn't follow from anything you have to offer that God does not exist. All you folks ever repeat is that appeal to a lack of belief. You absolved yourselves of any burden to prove otherwise, so it doesn't stem from anything you hold that God doesn't exist, just that you're unable to believe yourselves.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-10-2016, 07:25 PM
RE: Probable, or Not. The 1000 flavors is boring me...
(04-10-2016 06:13 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(04-10-2016 04:39 PM)Chas Wrote:  I said "There is both evidence for and a lack of evidence against." So your objection shows a lack of reading comprehension on your part.

And I said that without evidence for naturalism we would lack a belief in it. Do you acknowledge that?

Acknowledge that you are simply repeating what I have just said? Did you not understand it?

Quote:
Quote:Precisely. Because the supernatural does not exist. Gods do not exist.

The term supernatural has no real meaning in our age, where an atom can exist in two places at once, and be a called natural process. The term natural has become all encompassing, to include every possible observation, and phenomenon imaginable once observed. Nothing would distinguish a supernatural property of reality, from a newly discovered natural property of reality. The difference between the two wouldn't be substantive, just semantics.

And just because the term supernatural, offers no real distinction here, empty of any real meaning, doesn't mean that God does not exist. In fact it doesn't follow from anything you have to offer that God does not exist. All you folks ever repeat is that appeal to a lack of belief. You absolved yourselves of any burden to prove otherwise, so it doesn't stem from anything you hold that God doesn't exist, just that you're unable to believe yourselves.

Your concept of a god is a supernatural one. There is precisely the same evidence of either.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: