Life From Dirt?

[Valjean]

It is evidence for me, for my faith, it does not need to be the same evidence others have or see for their faith. Sometimes it is a personal experience.

Fine. It's personal, but it's epistemically useless, generally.

 

[Audie]

Ooooo that's not true!
Well maybe just a little bit.
But what am I meant to do in this sort of discussion, post a link or a quote.
I say what is true in my experience or my thinking or.............. something.

Maybe think a bit harder. It's a long standing
habit you have, of just saying things.

 

[shunyadragon]

Ooooo that's not true!
Well maybe just a little bit.
But what am I meant to do in this sort of discussion, post a link or a quote.
I say what is true in my experience or my thinking or.............. something.

Careful in your previous posts asserting in 'circular reasoning' that I believe it so personally, therefore it is evidence.

 

[YoursTrue]

Nations don't go to war against another. People go to war because they believe in nations.

Nonsense. The nations have leaders. And they can force people to do their will. Some people want to support the war effort of their individually bonded nation. Nations make sure the people born there belong to that -- nation. They're called citizens.

 

[YoursTrue]

No. It means existence is defined by detectability. Communication would confer detectability, therefore, existence.

I am beginning to think as @Brian2 describes, some people just like to throw their words around. What you are saying doesn't make sense, but then -- that's the way it goes with some. Hey. Have a good one, hope whatever happens is good. I'm not the judge that I (not you, of course), believe in, but I know what I think. Fortunately that is given.

 

[YoursTrue]

Careful in your previous posts asserting in 'circular reasoning' that I believe it so personally, therefore it is evidence.

Now that the subject has come up, I realize as Descartes almost said, "We think, therefore we ...are." I could explore that to symbolic or literal death, but I think I won't.

 

[Audie]

Nonsense. The nations have leaders. And they can force people to do their will. Some people want to support the war effort of their individually bonded nation. Nations make sure the people born there belong to that -- nation. They're called citizens.

" subjects "

 

[Audie]

I am beginning to think as @Brian2 describes, some people just like to throw their words around. What you are saying doesn't make sense, but then -- that's the way it goes with some. Hey. Have a good one, hope whatever happens is good. I'm not the judge that I (not you, of course), believe in, but I know what I think. Fortunately that is given.

It makes sense. May not be true but makes sense.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

it is not unreasonable to believe anything that is possible.

I disagree. Belief should be limited to that which is actual, which is a very small subset of all of that which is not known to be impossible. We need a method to tease out that which is actual from the merely possible, and fortunately, we have one.

The atheist position is not always "I lack belief", but that is a bit like feigned innocence for some. "Oh not me, I just don't know."

Yes, some atheists believe that there is no god, but so what? That is not required for atheism, and represents the minority of people with no god belief. But why call it "feigned innocence"? What do either feigned or innocence have to do with skepticism for gods? Do you consider agnostic atheists to be misrepresenting their beliefs? Do you think that they actually do believe that there are no gods but that they need to be deceptive about it?

But faith in an invisible God with a Book that is not verified does take a different type of evidence and verification than study of the material universe with science does. It is evidence for me, for my faith

Faith takes no evidence. If you have evidence that can be connected to a conclusion using fallacy-free reasoning, your belief is justified, and requires no faith to believe. If you don't have that, then whatever you are calling evidence doesn't support your belief and insn't the source of it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I think there is a God hypothesis... as there are many hypothesis.

What reasonable test made upon its own predictions could possibly refute it?

 

[shunyadragon]

Now that the subject has come up, I realize as Descartes almost said, "We think, therefore we ...are." I could explore that to symbolic or literal death, but I think I won't.

So circular it bites you in the butt.

 

[Audie]

So circular it bites you in the burr.

Could you send for some more
capable religionists?

 

[Valjean]

I am beginning to think as @Brian2 describes, some people just like to throw their words around. What you are saying doesn't make sense, but then -- that's the way it goes with some. Hey. Have a good one, hope whatever happens is good. I'm not the judge that I (not you, of course), believe in, but I know what I think. Fortunately that is given.

Which of my points doesn't make sense, and how so?

 

[Brian2]

Maybe think a bit harder. It's a long standing
habit you have, of just saying things.

Have you any examples?

 

[Brian2]

Careful in your previous posts asserting in 'circular reasoning' that I believe it so personally, therefore it is evidence.

Sorry, I can't figure out what you mean.

 

[Brian2]

I disagree. Belief should be limited to that which is actual, which is a very small subset of all of that which is not known to be impossible. We need a method to tease out that which is actual from the merely possible, and fortunately, we have one.

Yes, believing that which is actual is preferable to believing things that are possible but less certain.
How do you determine what is actual from the merely possible?

Yes, some atheists believe that there is no god, but so what? That is not required for atheism, and represents the minority of people with no god belief. But why call it "feigned innocence"? What do either feigned or innocence have to do with skepticism for gods? Do you consider agnostic atheists to be misrepresenting their beliefs? Do you think that they actually do believe that there are no gods but that they need to be deceptive about it?

I just believe, as you said, that some atheists believe there in no god. I also believe that some atheists speak as if they believe there is no god, and argue strongly that there is no god, but then use the "atheism is just a lack of belief in god" card when it suites.

Faith takes no evidence. If you have evidence that can be connected to a conclusion using fallacy-free reasoning, your belief is justified, and requires no faith to believe. If you don't have that, then whatever you are calling evidence doesn't support your belief and insn't the source of it.

For me, whatever I call evidence for God does support that belief but is probably not the source of it, just a support.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes, believing that which is actual is preferable to believing things that are possible but less certain.
How do you determine what is actual from the merely possible?

What? Possible is always more probably than mpossible.

I just believe, as you said, that some atheists believe there in no god. I also believe that some atheists speak as if they believe there is no god, and argue strongly that there is no god, but then use the "atheism is just a lack of belief in god" card when it suites.

You appear to be confused about atheists. Atheists that can and do refute your version of God do not refute all versions of God. But that is often the mistake of believers. When their personal god is refuted they try to say "You are trying to refute God". Nope, just yours

For me, whatever I call evidence for God does support that belief but is probably not the source of it, just a support.

You appear to be conflating evidence with ad hoc explanations. I have yet to see a theist properly use the term "evidence" when discussing their reasons for belief.

 

[YoursTrue]

So circular it bites you in the butt.

So long, maybe I'll look at some of your posts.

Yes, believing that which is actual is preferable to believing things that are possible but less certain.
How do you determine what is actual from the merely possible?



I just believe, as you said, that some atheists believe there in no god. I also believe that some atheists speak as if they believe there is no god, and argue strongly that there is no god, but then use the "atheism is just a lack of belief in god" card when it suites.



For me, whatever I call evidence for God does support that belief but is probably not the source of it, just a support.

Regardless of the criticisms of the Bible, to me it makes the most sense of all.

 

[Brian2]

You appear to be confused about atheists. Atheists that can and do refute your version of God do not refute all versions of God. But that is often the mistake of believers. When their personal god is refuted they try to say "You are trying to refute God". Nope, just yours

That's a good point.
And the only way my God can be shown to not exist is to show that Biblical history is not true and the teaching do not match science, which of course is always correct and everything must answer to it.

 

[Audie]

Have you any examples?

Lots. I will point them out in the future
as the come along.