Are there any good arguments for God?

[allfoak]

@viole , @Mestemia , @Acim

I cannot convince anyone of things that can't be seen.
We all know they exist, some choose to deny they have any significance.
There s nothing i can do about that.

I am sure that it matters little to you but i am truly sorry that i am unable to help you to see something as simple as the existence of faith.

 

[Acim]

@Acim

I cannot convince anyone of things that can't be seen.
We all know they exist, some choose to deny they have any significance.
There s nothing i can do about that.

I am sure that it matters little to you but i am truly sorry that i am unable to help you to see something as simple as the existence of faith.

No apology needed. Not sure what I previously wrote that lead you to think I am unable to see (faith).

 

[allfoak]

Faith would be the word I use to describe my belief in the 'reality' of the physical world.

No apology needed. Not sure what I previously wrote that lead you to think I am unable to see (faith).

I am sorry, you are correct, i did not represent what you said correctly.

 

[McBell]

@viole , @Mestemia , @Acim

I cannot convince anyone of things that can't be seen.
We all know they exist, some choose to deny they have any significance.
There s nothing i can do about that.

I am sure that it matters little to you but i am truly sorry that i am unable to help you to see something as simple as the existence of faith.

What a load of crap.
Where has any of us claimed that faith does not exist?
If this is all the better you can do, then you do your god a huge disservice.
Shame on you.
Shame on any deity that condones such dishonesty.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Out of curiosity, what's the issue with Bayesianism

Nothing whatsoever. I am not a Bayesian myself, but I lean more towards that interpretation and framework than any other.

I mainly ask because the state of the art for road collision safety reviews (part of my field) heavily relies on the Empirical Bayes method

Sounds pretty cool actually. I'm not just a fan of Bayesian statistics (and the growth of Bayesian approaches in computational intelligence) but also Bayesian epistemology.
Like falsification, and even more so (IMO), Bayesian inference is required in the sciences and it is a travesty that Fisher and his rivals not only destroyed its use for most of the 20th century, but introduced the most widely used experimental and statistical paradigm across the sciences that is so flawed the literature on its flaws predate its founders.
That said, the attempt to somehow artificially force scientific enquiry into ANY single experimental paradigm, singular method, or empirical procedure has always failed, will do so, and hampers science education

 

[allfoak]

Accepting the possibility that God exists is not faith. For instance, I think it is entirely possible that God exists, even if I do not believe for a second that He does.

The same applies to a non numerable infinity of things that could possibly exist. E.g. Galactic emperor Xenu, Or the great Juju at the bottom of the ocean.

Ciao

- viole

Here is the response you made to the quote above which clearly denies what i defined as faith.
It takes faith to even consider the possibility of God's existence.
To accept something like the existence of God takes faith.

What a load of crap.
Where has any of us claimed that faith does not exist?
If this is all the better you can do, then you do your god a huge disservice.
Shame on you.
Shame on any deity that condones such dishonesty.

 

[McBell]

Here is the response you made to the quote above which clearly denies what i defined as faith.
It takes faith to even consider the possibility of God's existence.
To accept something like the existence of God takes faith.

So it is in fact YOU who does not understand what faith is, not those you falsely accuse...

Rather difficult to take you seriously now.

 

[allfoak]

So it is in fact YOU who does not understand what faith is, not those you falsely accuse...

Rather difficult to take you seriously now.

Think what you will.
What i said makes sense.
You seem to be what some would call incorrigible.

 

[viole]

Here is the response you made to the quote above which clearly denies what i defined as faith.
It takes faith to even consider the possibility of God's existence.
To accept something like the existence of God takes faith.

To aceept the possibility that God exists requires deployment of logic, not of faith. If God is defined in terms such that they do not entail a contradiction, then God is (logically) possible. By definition of "logically possible".

The same is valid for all things that are logically possible. For instance, garden fairies or bigfoot do not seem, prima facie, to lead to a logical contradiction, either, if they existed. Ergo, I claim the possibility that garden fairies and bigfoot exist. And that is a far cry from claiming that I have faith in the possibility of their existence. i don't need faith. I am certain that they possibly exist, if they are contradictions free. Tautologically certain. Even though I have no faith at all that they do, indeed, exist.

See the difference?

Ciao

- viole

 

[McBell]

Think what you will.
What i said makes sense.
You seem to be what some would call incorrigible.

Yet you are are the one flat out lying...
I never made any claim what so ever about faith in this thread.
And here you are claiming *I* am incorrigible?
Your dishonesty has no bounds.

 

[viole]

@viole , @Mestemia , @Acim

I cannot convince anyone of things that can't be seen.
We all know they exist, some choose to deny they have any significance.
There s nothing i can do about that.

I am sure that it matters little to you but i am truly sorry that i am unable to help you to see something as simple as the existence of faith.

Nobody doubts the existence of faith. Who said we do doubt the existence of faith?

What we "doubt" is the actual, not only possible, existence of the object of your faith.

Ciao

- viole

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

@viole , @Mestemia , @Acim

I cannot convince anyone of things that can't be seen.
We all know they exist, some choose to deny they have any significance.
There s nothing i can do about that.

This conversation isn't about some generic "things that can't be seen"; it's about the particular things that can't be seen - God - that you claim exists.

 

[allfoak]

To aceept the possibility that God exists requires deployment of logic, not of faith. If God is defined in terms such that they do not entail a contradiction, then God is (logically) possible. By definition of "logically possible".

The same is valid for all things that are logically possible. For instance, garden fairies or bigfoot do not seem, prima facie, to lead to a logical contradiction, either, if they existed. Ergo, I claim the possibility that garden fairies and bigfoot exist. And that is a far cry from claiming that I have faith in the possibility of their existence. i don't need faith. I am certain that they possibly exist, if they are contradictions free. Tautologically certain. Even though I have no faith at all that they do, indeed, exist.

See the difference?

Ciao

- viole

Of course i understand the difference.
You can use your faith in any manner you please, or not use it at all, it is still a part of you and it is needed in order to prove for yourself the existence of God.
I understand that what i am saying sounds like a contradiction, i assure you it is not.

 

[allfoak]

I posted This but not one of you commented on it.
Some of you clearly never even looked at it.
The reason i know that is because the comments that were made contradict what it says.

All done.
bye-bye.

 

[McBell]

I posted This but not one of you commented on it.
Some of you clearly never even looked at it.
The reason i know that is because the comments that were made contradict what it says.

All done.
bye-bye.

That is post #374.
We had no interaction in this thread until you attacked me out of the blue in post #381.

 

[allfoak]

That is post #374.
We had no interaction in this thread until you attacked me out of the blue in post #381.

Your perception is that you were attacked.
I do not attack people.

 

[McBell]

Your perception is that you were attacked.
I do not attack people.

You falsely accused me, out of the blue, of doing something I did not do.
That is an attack.

 

[Acim]

I cannot convince anyone of things that can't be seen.

IMO, your error started here. Error might not be the best word. I see it more along lines of hypocrisy. I believe you / I can convince everyone of things that can't be seen. You may not know that you can or perhaps may not find out that you did lead someone on a path where they became convinced.

The whole 'can't be seen' thing works two ways. I alluded to this in my previous post. Can't see the physical world without physical eyes. How is that 'seeing?' That's circular logic and is unsubstantiated by way of objective evidence. Thus, those that might try to convince me/anyone that this world can be 'seen' are likely to employ similar rhetoric with a different aim. Spiritual sight exists. Many know this, perhaps more deny it. From a cynical perspective, who cares who knows it and who denies it? Doesn't take away from reality that some do, some don't. I know all can, I believe all will. I make no apologies on this. What purpose would there be to be sorry about this?

If one chooses to maintain plausible deniability, that's on them. I say respect it, perhaps discuss/debate it, but don't get bent out of shape if you don't find out today that you did impact their overall beliefs, regardless of how much in contention they show up to you in a debate forum.

 

[allfoak]

You falsely accused me, out of the blue, of doing something I did not do.
That is an attack.

I am sorry for attacking you.

 

[allfoak]

IMO, your error started here. Error might not be the best word. I see it more along lines of hypocrisy. I believe you / I can convince everyone of things that can't be seen. You may not know that you can or perhaps may not find out that you did lead someone on a path where they became convinced.

The whole 'can't be seen' thing works two ways. I alluded to this in my previous post. Can't see the physical world without physical eyes. How is that 'seeing?' That's circular logic and is unsubstantiated by way of objective evidence. Thus, those that might try to convince me/anyone that this world can be 'seen' are likely to employ similar rhetoric with a different aim. Spiritual sight exists. Many know this, perhaps more deny it. From a cynical perspective, who cares who knows it and who denies it? Doesn't take away from reality that some do, some don't. I know all can, I believe all will. I make no apologies on this. What purpose would there be to be sorry about this?

If one chooses to maintain plausible deniability, that's on them. I say respect it, perhaps discuss/debate it, but don't get bent out of shape if you don't find out today that you did impact their overall beliefs, regardless of how much in contention they show up to you in a debate forum.

Somehow i got the idea that i had to convince someone of something.
A statement like that is obviously one of frustration over nothing.
I am not here to convince anyone of anything.


I am sorry that i made that statement.